User talk:RandomHumanoid/Archives/2008/December

Re: Wayne
A few months ago, I fixed multiple WP:MOS issues (mostly heading problems) that User talk:TheChad89 had added as part of his editing on the Wayne, Harrison, Manning, Mathis, Freeney, and Gonzalez articles. He also added detailed statistics (that he didn't care to update), which are generally discouraged under WP:NOT - infobox statistics overviews were added for that reason. However, each time I fixed this, TheChad89 mass-reverted my edits, only because he didn't agree with my deletion of the stats; he never cared to take notice that I was in fact making many style fixes. He was warned for this, but he most recently mass-reverted my edits a few days ago under his IP address, on more pages than just Wayne. Therefore, I have warned him again for reckless reverting and reverted to restore. Now, that statement ("Reggie Wayne has stated that it is his goal to increase his receptions total each year, which he has accomplished for the first seven years of his career.") that I had removed was part of these reverts. Why? Because it clearly was written by TheChad89 (I'd have to go back and check), as using the full name is a good sign that a novice editor was involved; as such, it appeared to me to be one of those unencyclopedic/player bio "fun facts" that novice "fan" editors like to add. Even if it was sourced, it's of marginal notability at most. Like I said, the statement is built more for a fan page than an encylopedia article. And I've been around the block here long enough to know the difference. Hope that clears everything up.  Pats 1  T / C  20:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but just providing a matrix of stats like that is not what Wikipedia is for, hence the links to Pro Football Reference, NFL.com, ESPN, and the like. Per WP:NOT or WP:TRIVIA, if stats (or images) are to be used, then they should be incorporated into the text and only notable stats should be included.  Pats 1  T / C  20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gottlieb Agnethler
Actually, most folks are more likely to slam me as an eviallll deletionist. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello there! I am new here and I recently started working on some of the stubs in the Musical Instrument group. The salpinx stub contained some random information regarding the use of the word in anatomy. It really had no place in the salpinx article, but I wasn't sure if it should be deleted, so I tried to move it. Now I know that that kind of thing is removeable. Thanks! Patrickmcg (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy
Yes I usually do that, I did that with the last state Template:Guerrero which were mostly missing. They can all be fully expanded eventually using the Enciclopedia of Mexico. But they shouldn't still be missing givne that some of them covers thousands of square kilomteres. The Bald One      White cat 17:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, well give me a few days. Yes actually I'm thinking the right thing to do for Hidalgo would be to merge the municipal and main town articles into one as the areas are relatively small. If sometime in the future they are all expanded then they can be split.

As a result they merge like Acatlán, Apan, probably meaning higher quality. Theres no reaosn why any of them couldn't be expanded fully like Xalapa, the information is there. You may be interested to see the task I have at WikiProject Mexico/State templates. The Bald One      White cat 18:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I had this nagging feeling I was overlooking something. --James26 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fairlie, Texas
I have removed the prod tag from Fairlie, Texas, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Snigbrook 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Longevity Myth
I accidentally edited the Longevity Myth page anonymously. I have undone your undo, and added two citations from published books (available to read on Google Books, if you'd like) to back up the edit. As it stood — you are correct — it could be qualified as "original research". It was lazy of me not to include the citations... it was late and I was tired. ;-) Supertheman  ( talk  ) 04:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashwin K
Ashwin K wrote the article on himself, and is now defending it. The copyright justification on the photo states clearly who "Inkwash" is, i.e., Ashwin himself. I'm not happy about his deceptions, but from the citations, I'd say he actually is notable. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the links were to newspaper homepages. I certainly don't think he's remotely notable, and I just reported his behavior to WP:AN/I.  Frustrating, huh?  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for the user ( as you saw :) ) - he has been amply warned now, and if he continues edit-warring or sock/meatputtery, I guess he is heading to a block. Personally, I am not sure if the article itself meets WP:N or not, so will think over it and add my comments on the AFD page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick note: The use of the word "vanity" in AFD nominations is usually deprecated since it unnecessarily insults the subject, without necessarily strengthening the deletion argument. So could you reword your nomination to avoid the term ? Abecedare (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. Never let it be said I don't play nicely with folks. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! In case you are insterested here is the original discussion on the issue. Abecedare (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting read and point well taken. I suspect the vanity pieces stand out uniquely but I see no reason to publicly embarrass anyone.  And a biographical AFD is surely embarrassing enough. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Category for "Worst case complexity"
There is no need to have category "Computer science" for Worst case complexity article. This article already has a category "Analysis of algorithms", which is a subcategory of "Algorithms", which is a subcategory of "Computer science". Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Yarnell Bio
Noted your notations on the Yarnell biography. Obviously a promotion by his seminary. Yet there is some work there worth a Wikipedia entry. I have tried cleaned it up. Please take another look and consider changing the notations. Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the information about graduate schools be left? Is this advert or not? Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given someone with no history was just banned for trying to remove these tags and you showed up immediately thereafter to continue the effort at a rather fine level of detail, with the goal of having the tags removed, I'm curious if you're the same person. Regardless, there is simply too much history with the parent institution to make me comfortable with the tags being removed.  On another note, the article does almost nothing to establish Yarnell's notability.  I would be more concerned with that than minor wording nuances describing his beliefs pedantically. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! No. I'm definitely not him. I don't know about the institution, although I do know about him. Not a bad guy. Met him at an ecumenical meeting. I will take a look at the parent institution, though. Is this worth a deletion in your opinion? IMHO, worth a short article. Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the grad schools? Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what grad school information you're referring to. There is none in the article about Malcolm Yarnell.  As for the bio itself, to me he seems to satisfy WP:Prof.  On another note, I do find it very odd that this article is receiving so much attention this evening.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the parent institution. Seems like it has a history of controversy! I am not conversant with Wikipedia other than as a user, so I am not sure how you would define notability except that he is known among some evangelicals. Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the discussion page for his seminary.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion page has warnings that I have not seen before. "Not a forum" and "be polite" seem to indicate some heated discussions in the past, and the "sourced criticism" note is not good for an academic institution to be involved. Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the seminary article, you will see it has some unfortunate history, and there was apparently some effort to censor that. Wikipedia is not censored. (See WP:NOTCENSORED) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Yarnell article mentions Duke Divinity School and Oxford. I assumed these were his grad schools. Am I misreading that? I don't know if that is helpful to the article or not. Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article explicitly states those are institutions where he was a graduate student, so I'm not sure I understand your question. Also, it would be more productive to move comments/questions about the article to its discussion page, so other people can participate.  You'll get much better feedback that way.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 09:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've done all I can for the article and a guy I enjoyed meeting. I did read his book and the two articles, and a few other short pieces. I don't know that there is any more documentation that can be added from the perspective of notability. Some of the terms you are employing are new to me, so I will leave this to you as the expert to determine. Tom Wilson Rich (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that TWR is a sockpuppet of Frank Lea. It's no coincidence that his account was created less than 20 minutes after Frank Lea was blocked, and he's using another full name, in addition to trying again to remove the tags and contributing more OR to this suddenly very active article. I'd like your opinion before placing a tag on his talk page. Thanks. sixty nine   • spill it •  21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I absolutely thought he was sockpuppet. (One might hope for better behavior regarding these types of articles but I guess not.) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Freelance - Надомна работа на свободна практика
Do you really want to translate spam? The links lead to job seeker blogs. And the username matches the name of the article. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really read Bulgarian. But I'll take your word on it. :) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 10:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being a good sport. I've given you a present in the upper right hand corner of your talk page. You can delete it without hurting my feelings if you'd rather not have it there. Best regards for the new year. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I spent too much time here yesterday. :) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 18:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashwin K
Thanks for the message. Actually I nominated under G11 as doing nothing but promote the individual, but in the circumstances I agree that the Afd will kill it soon. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Gregory discussion of Steve Glickman and Vote Sizing page notability and related topics
The criterion for the Steve Glickman page was: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." The significant new concept--vote sizing--has also been flagged for deletion. I believe that your defense of Wikipedia is focused in the wrong areas, because this is an encyclopedia by and for the people. Volume is important here. It is better to include too much than too little. That being said, it is also very important-perhaps even more important--that the topics covered here are accurately described and free of bias. I welcome a bit of debate on this as we seem to have opposing views. Thank you. P.S. why was the Glickman page removed so quickly--the alert went up on the 27th and it's already down? Chuck Gregory (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to make the case for notability in articles you write. You also seem unfamiliar with some of basic premises underlying Wikipedia, including WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. More generally, I suggest you read WP:NOT.  Then we can talk. (And please put headings for new topics created on a talk page. It makes the page easier to read.)  Best.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the NOT pages--all of them, even the one about not telling somebody not to put beans up their nose! I am somewhat unfamiliar with some of the basic premises but I have been and still am attempting to identify points of dispute in order to forge a consensus. It is my hope that I can make suitable changes to the article to prove notability. Unfortunately, I thought that I had done that when I published the article, so I am now a bit confused. My comments to you specifically were in response to points you made on your user page. I have created a heading for this section btw; that was an oversight due to inexperience here.(as is the appearance of this paragraph--can't seem to get rid of the bold type) Chuck Gregory (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problems with your articles were: (1) that all assertions of importance must come from outside sources and (2) you are not allowed to present original research here; you can simply cite reliable third party sources. You can only prove notability by finding accepted sources, e.g., the NY Times, that claim notability.  Your own opinions cannot establish it.  You may want to hang around a bit to get a hang of the place and how things work (and don't work) here. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Retainability :)
Before i lay claim to rebuttal's legitimacy. But before i say anything further, i should first mention that, reading is a form of interpretive epistemological projection. And so, that being said, the bellow is genuinely said with bewildering glee...

Thank you for brightening my day:) The word exists...lol... I'm still laughing that my definition was pulled for violating the speedy deletion G1 rule:"Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases."

The definition i provided was straight from the Online English Oxford Dictionary, that only i can access with my student info. The only thing i recall doing that could have constituted a slight violation was change a few letters and numbers on the url address, because i didn't want anyone to directly access my account, because that would violate my agreement with the OED not to directly share my user access. Anyway, i defined the word as it appeared on their site, hence my usage of quotes.

I did not invent a word...lol...  If anyone has license to coin or invent a word...lol...it's the OED. So yeah, if you have power to re-post what i posted you should. Cause the definition was legit :p --ToasterCoster (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, you missed the point entirely. Of course it's a word.  My OED is one of my treasured possessions.  However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Do we really need 400,000 pages of word definitions for English alone?  So, my friend, the joke is on you... -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 01:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ten Technologies
You placed Ten Technologies to Save the Planet under speedy deletion as of 2008-12-28 23:48. Since then I've added to the existing references as best I can, but I'm a little unsure as to how much notibility can be applied to a book; searches for potential references seem to fall into three categoris: reviews, sellers and a few articles which mention it because of the green issue. I'm not sure Wikipedia would benefit from listing the suppliers Amazon, WHSmith and the like with every modern publication, so I've tried to only include a handful of these. Any other suggestions that would avoid the hammer of deletion? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, please put in links to the quotes rather than citing them verbatim without citations.  It makes the article read like a dust jacket.  Also, I removed links that established nothing.  I was excited for all of one second to see a link to New Scientist, until I saw it was the equivalent of a press release.  Please find reviews in notable publications and add citations to those.  Thanks. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And by the way, the article is under prod now. Books cannot be listed under CSD. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well a thorough internet search has found absolutely no further good references; any book reviews point back to that by Treehugger.com and the rest are nothing more than vendors. I'll try to find some published sources, but I don't count my luck on finding any within 5 days so it will have to be deleted. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: JOhn HIldebrandt
You said John Hildebrandt does not meet the standards of a notable person. However, he is a mayor and that is under the polictics part of the notable people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley844 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, please leave comments at the bottom of talk pages, where I've moved this one. He is mayor of a township.  That is not notable.  The article is also so poorly written it reads like a hagiography.  It is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is why it's been nominated for deletion. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He is a mayor. What is the difference??? Just because it is a smaller area does not make him any less notable. He is the mayor of a large area of land. You probably dont understand this because you dont live in the country so if you need help understanding, just let me know and i will be happy to help. City slickers often think that the people who live in the country are just Hill-billys, and I have some news for you, they are not. He is just as important, if not more important, than the mayor of LA would be. He is notable and has done many notable things. Also, in my opinion it is fairly well written, but what if we move it to the simple english section. I always hate on this site how it is hard to understand what people are saying anyway, I know it is an attempt to sound impressive but it just makes it unuseful. If you think it is to simply written, I would be happy for it to be in the simple english section. --Paisley844 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, how does this read like a hagiography?? I am not making him sound like a holy person. It is simply the facts. --Paisley844 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Petersburg, VA)
Thanks for your comment. --Parkwells (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

John Holdebrandt
No, I owe you an apology for reverting your edit. I don't agree with all of it, and I think you removed cites I added, but the answer was not to revert all you'd done. You were right to defluff the thing. Haven't the time or energy to fix the thing.

Unfortunately, we have an inexperienced editor who does not understand inline citing and does not use the standard cite formats, who has to rely on sources that are not online, with a subject of questionable notability. I think the subject might pass notability requirements were a more experienced editor able to tackle the thing. But that is not the way consensus has gone so far. We need a more explicit guideline, "all mayors are notable," would save some headaches. Offline sourcing is always a problem. Cheers, and happy editng. Dloh cierekim  16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)