User talk:Sanchom/Archive 2

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

CFBs and CSTCs
Hi Sanchom - I agree in every case that a CSTC is worth mention in a larger CFB article, however there have been some cases where the sheer amount of information on a CSTC has overwhelmed the main article about the base itself. The most recent case that I came across was on the CFB Esquimalt naval base article. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Canadian Forces, but Esquimalt is the home of the Pacific fleet and functions almost exclusively as a navy base. There is an adjunct training area at Albert Head attached to the base which was used for harbour defence in WW2 but has been used by cadets, as well as reserve and regular force personnel since then (Esquimalt being in a built-up/urban area, Albert Head is better for training security forces, etc.). Anyway, the air cadets in southern BC use Albert Head for a CSTC and lots of these kids, being born in the 1990s are pretty internet savvy. So they're enthusiastically sharing information on their CSTCs on Wikipedia and are putting the info into the main base articles - everything from the type of food at the mess tent to the names of CO's and warrant officers who have trained them for the last 20 years. Not trying to denigrate the cadet movement (I was one at one time) but the history of the base is far more important than any sub-unit. We have separate articles for units like air force squadrons, navy warships, army regiments, etc. and each of the individual cadet organizations (sea, air, army), but there's been a big increase in editing about these cadet training centres in recent months/years, so I just figured it would be best to start formally organizing them, even if some of them are just stubs... I'm not averse to seeing CSTC articles with little information (like CSTC Greenwood or CSTC Cold Lake) placed back into their host base articles, but in cases like Albert Head/CFB Esquimalt, the CSTC Albert Head article nicely encapsulates the information for future editing. Cheers,Plasma east 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me (reducing the non-original CSTC content). I was merely preserving them to avoid being the slash-and-burn type that might scare off new Wikipedians.  Since these are sub-units of the Canadian cadet organization and are just hosted at these bases, maybe we could create one master CSTC article (say Cadet Summer Training Centre), under which brief blurbs on each sea cadet, air cadet and army cadet training facilities could be listed.  Each Canadian Forces Base that hosts such a facility could point to this master document which would have the cadet-centric focus.  A CSTC shouldn't dominate the much more substantial lodger unit in a base article (ie. a wing, a fleet, or a training centre or a regiment). Plasma east 13:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Nix
Thanks for reviewing the Nix article, and for the info on citations. Cheers, JCO312 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Most famous
There is a principle of NOR to be defended - but it needs to be used with discretion. There are places where it is absolutely appropriate and should be strongly applied. We can all think of them. There are other places where it becomes tiresome/pointless/petty/priggish. Its value varies from point to point, like an electric field if you like. I would say that in the context of an article on comb overs, about a point made simply to be informative and which could be refuted by anyone who lives in the UK if it were untrue, it is less in place. Trust me they are the most famous wearers, as anyone who has kept any sort of eye on UK comedy shows over the last 40 years (longer than I have) could attest. 88888 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Copy of reply posted at User_talk:88888):
 * "Hi 88888, thanks for that reply. Now I think understand our differences. From what your message on my talk page says, I understand that you do agree that the information that you've added to the comb over article is original research, but that you believe that original research is appropriate in this case. This is where we differ in opinion. I think it would be very difficult to create criteria to allow us to distinguish original research that is appropriate and original research that is not. The policy on original research doesn't seem conditional to me; it does not indicate that we should approach it with discretion. You say that I (and in turn readers of Wikipedia) should just trust you, and that anyone with an eye on British comedy in the last 40 years could attest to the fact. I don't think that statements can be included based on personal trust of the contributor. Also, if anyone with an eye on British comedy in the last 40 years could attest to the fact, why has no one published this in a reliable source. Removing the statement about their popularity wouldn't be admitting that they aren't popular, it would be admitting that we have no reliable source that answers the question, 'Are these two people the most famous wearers in the UK?' Again, please reply either here or on my talk page. Or, if you don't think we can resolve this difference by discussion, I would be open to a Third_opinion listing if you are open to that as well. Sancho McCann 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * Sancho McCann 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just think that like any rule, it is made for a particular purpose. But there are other purposes as well, which have legitimate claims, but are harder to define and protect, so rules have to be applied intelligently on a case by case basis (often the 'rules' allude to this if you look closely). What you should think before you edit is: will my particular edit improve this particular article? Call it the GOLDEN RULE. But then the wisdom of Solomon would fall foul of wiki rules as interpreted by eager wiki-cops too because for some people rules aren't rules to make things better but to create offences they can enforce and definitions they can police. 88888 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Copy of reply posted at [[User_talk:88888):
 * "Hi again. So it seems to me our differences are not resolvable by discussion as we disagree at such a root level on what the no original research policy means. Would you like to apply with me to get a third opinion on this matter at Third opinion? Let me know at my talk page if you'd like me to do that, or you can post the request yourself and let me know that you've done that. When we post, we should also include a link to this discussion we've been having (I've kept it available on my talk page), since our points aren't on the article talk page as they might normally be expected. Sancho McCann 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)"


 * No, no third party needed. I am content to let you have the final word. It isn't the biggest issue in the world at the moment. NOR - I was reporting what is almost a truism, not claiming to have private access to hidden facts. 88888 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So You Were On (Insert Name Here) Idol
I will post this here, as well as in the AfD for your benefit. The Insert Name Here bit was actually a link that pointed to WP:NOTABILITY. It was my attempt at humor on a day that I did not get much sleep. I was trying to point out that just being on a TV reality show is not enough for notability to be established. FYI, I actually did work on an article with this title in my user page area. I just am not sure if I will keep it, since I have a quirky sense of humor that some folks do not get. If you want to check that page out, it is at User:Fundamentaldan/idol. Sorry for the confusion. Fundamental Dan 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, my confusion of yesterday has been replaced with a different confusion of the day :-) And I like your idol page. I would vote for keep if it ever ended up in a "user subpages for deletion" debate. Sancho McCann 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents
I replied. —Doug Bell talk 08:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The rank of NR's
Yes there is no reference possible to this rank, only because it is optional. I know of 2 squadrons in quebec and 5 (including my own) in Western Canada that uses them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.3.167 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * That is interesting, though. I had never heard of it before. Sancho McCann 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

zeppo network
greetings, thank you for your advice regarding zeppo network, i went to the page this evening to merge as requested, however the page does not exist. please advise next step to retrieve the data to merge. warm regardsrobertholf 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote for a merge was contingent on the result of the discussion reaching a consensus of keep. However, as can be seen at Articles_for_deletion/Zeppo_Network_(2nd_nomination), the result of the discussion was delete. As this was the second time that this page was deleted, it seems unlikely that the community consensus will soon change regarding the acceptance of these articles without new developments or a broader claim to notability. You can also direct questions to the administrator that closed the discussion. That person is listed at the top of the discussion page (Articles_for_deletion/Zeppo_Network_(2nd_nomination)). See you around. Sancho McCann 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP BLP article
Just a note, and I'm sorry it's a bit tardy, to tell you that your willingness to engage on Talk:Seth Swirsky and Seth Swirsky is very much appreciated.

After all but two editors had been driven off by an angry new registrant, your participation was a great help in an extremely unpleasant situation. (I'm posting this directly to you to avoid drawing further fire on the article talk page.)

Heartfelt thanks from this Wikipedian. — Athænara  ✉  02:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's nice to know that the situation has resolved itself. I notice that MoeLarryAndJesus has returned from his block and did make a change to the Seth Swirsky page since, but a seemingly agreeable one. I would assume good faith on his part again. His recent comment on the talk page does seem a little on the aggressive side, but I have asked him to take the first step at breaking the cycle of dispute. He does indicate a little concern that you are not assuming good faith or acting slightly uncivil towards him, but I think he is willing to break the cycle at this time. I'm sure you are too. Hopefully the dispute is over and you can both go on editing happily ever after :-) Sancho McCann 06:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are very good at finding the optimally civil social NPOV, so to speak, which can be a real gift.


 * Ironically, before the second request for a WP:3O had been posted by another editor only three and a half days ago, I had never heard of Seth Swirsky—an artifact of a low level of interest in pop music, baseball, and political blogs. Such disinterestedness can be an advantage in WP:3O work, but not this time, I think ;-D


 * Responding to that second request turned out to be an incautious step into a minefield, and it was not only the primary target of the angry new registrant's one-article editing and contempt who got hurt.


 * Whether or not the situation resolves itself, as you say, I wanted you to know that your interceptions are making a significant difference.  — Athænara   ✉  07:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up for anti-vandal work
Just wanted to let you know that you've beaten me to the punch about three times today. Good job! :-) --NMChico24 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just learned about TWINKLE today :-) Sancho McCann (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sugestion
Thank you for the sugestion. I will look into it. .-Samuel Pakalomattam 23/02/02007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakalomattam (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ian Gouldstone
hey sorry! first time editing a wiki page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anjchang (talk • contribs) 07:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I understand. Apology accepted. Welcome :-) Sancho McCann (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Question
Hi, why do i get a speedy deletion notice for a company information i've created ? Please advise me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infomatics

regards mails4all


 * Because I believe that the article satisfies criteria for speedy deletion Articles-7. Please see Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Sancho McCann (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can improve the article so that it does not meet that criteria for speedy deletion. I see that you've placed the tag there. That's good. Please discuss on the talk page why you think the article should not be deleted, or make it apparent in the article. If you have more questions, please ask. Sancho McCann (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)