User talk:Saebjorn/Archive/23-Oct-2009

User:Mathsci
Please stop editing my talk page. I expect you to apologize by wikipedia email. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth did you think you were doing? Please apologize by email and pease don't touch my talk page. Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I worked too quickly and didn't realize it was you who were deleting the content. I was overenthusiastic and sloppy in my labor. I'd love to apologize by email; how does one do so? Saebjorn! 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass welcoming
Hi Saebjon. It's wonderful to have enthusiasm, but can I suggest that you only welcome users who have made a constructive edit. That way you avoid welcoming vandals and clogging up the New Pages log. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind stopping, but I do remember that when I first joined Wikipedia, I was very confused, and did not know what to do at all, far before my first edit (constructive or not.) I believe that welcoming newcomers is important, as does Jimmy Wales, in his second statement of the principles of Wikipedia, and that welcoming a vandal is not an issue at all, because it takes barely any time, and welcoming them can only change their ways. They won't do anything more if welcomed. If they take the time to make usernames, they should be respected. Being new to this site is very difficult, I wish to ease the transition as much as possible. What I do agree with you on is the clogging of the New Pages log. I do not have any previous experience with this, and do not know how bad it is. That is up to you, and if you still do not agree with me, I'll still listen to you, and not welcome others, but I believe that you should listen to my arguments first. Thanks so much for listening to my rant!:D

Saebjorn! 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of vandalism?
I have just modified the Grundig page, for reasons documented on the talk page, and you accuse me of vandalism! I was improving the article. Sometimes this involves removing existing content for a good reason. I find your attitude offensive. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it
I went ahead and restored that article for you since it was one of those which got swept out in the mass deletion. There were simply too many to sort through on an individual basis, but if you happen to think of any others which might be salvageable, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll restore them immediately. Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lieblein House
References are at the end of the article, under "References". Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean this in the most respectful way, but do references make it notable? Does being on the United States' National Register of Historic Places make it notable? I actually do not know, so please reply. Thanks! Saebjorn! 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do references make it notable? Not necessarily, but they're a good indication of notability. From Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  The references are the sources from which the article is written; to prove notability, the sources must be a) reliable, b) independent of the subject, and c) cover the subject in a significant way.  Which I believe these are, and, to be frank, isn't something that one could determine in less than a minute.


 * Does being on the United States' National Register of Historic Places make it notable? Yes it does. For inclusion on the Register, a property undergoes an extensive application process which requires researching and documenting the structure's historical significance. (here's an example, albeit for the Lake Linden Historic District)  This research is reviewed by the NRHP to determine if the property is eligible.  The bar for inclusion in the NRHP is far higher than Wikipedia's standards of notability, so inclusion on the Register would indicate the structure's notability. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Sorry for the confusion! Saebjorn! 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * De nada. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)