User talk:UnitedStatesian/Archive 1

Response to User:Amitsoni9999
I'll take your questions in turn:
 * Thanks for the questions, and welcome to Wikipedia: its quality definitely depends on the entire editor community, and I am sure I speak for everyone when I say it is good to have you on board (esp. since you are so articulate and a good writer).
 * "published works" definitely includes internet publishing, but the works need to be independent of the subject (in this case the company), so links to company web pages and press releases don't meet the requirement.
 * Wikipedia contributors establish the credibility of internet publishing by generally excluding posts on personal webpages, social networking sites like MySpace, blogs, and internet discussion forums. Third party posts (like a technology site giving an independent product review) would be the best.
 * I appreciate your neutral writing of both the Zitku and Catabatic Automation Technology articles, and agree that they both show "no praise, no criticism." The problem is that your connection makes difficult the hardest neutral question: should these two articles exist at all?  My gut says no (for now, at least), but you should try to prove me wrong by adding the good subject sources to both of them.  Before we do any deleting, let's continue the conversation after you have done so, here or on the article pages. UnitedStatesian 19:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing Notability guidelines
Although the notability page for Organization and companies is undergoing some major changes, it is probably better to propose your changes at the talk page first and gain consensus before making the change directly. The text has been pretty heavilly debated and the section that you changed is the primary criterion. Actually I like your change, but it might get reverted by one of the other editors. Good luck and welcome to the discussion.

Kevin --Kevin Murray 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability (organizations and companies)
Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ORG/CORP
The primary criterion at WP:N was changed and the new text at WP:ORG reflcted that change. Then WP:N was modified again, but included the single attribution in a less prominent statement. WP:BIO is similar. You are not alone in expressing a concern. There is a robust discussion about the topic at WP:N.

I beleive theat there are situations where one exceptional source could demonstrate notabilility.

--Kevin Murray 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't like links to wikisource?
You don't like links to wikisource? Could you please explain this edit? Geo Swan 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stock market
In my opinion, the problem would be that many companies' stock is traded on multiple stock markets, and that one cannot tell from the category system which one of those is the primary. If a company article is going to have five or six "stock market" cats at the bottom I would not consider that a defining characteristic, and the matter might be better dealt with through lists (and sortable tables). HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

when placing or removing a tag
please use an informative edit summary, such as "prod-NN". It helps make sense of the page history. DGG 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

shopping malls
This does not sound familiar to me. Can you give me some specifics. Thanks Hmains 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I found some of my work. Well, shopping malls are owned by someone (a company) and managed by someone (a company--maybe the same one), they are bought and sold, so they seem to be companies to me. I suppose I continued to expand this company thing to match what I had already found in place for some states before me. Yes, I think that malls are companies. Perhaps reading the articles will help out. Hmains 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking further, I guess malls are properties not companies so the company category must be wrong. Hmains 05:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

editing of my sandbox
I saw you edited something in my sandbox, please do not do this as its in MY sandbox. A sandbox is a place for an editor to continually work on article undisturbed. Anyhow that was an old article so it doesnt matter, but in the future please do not edit other peoples sandboxes. Thanks --eLeigh33 03:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * no prob. eLeigh33 23:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Recon Optical
FYI, per the author's request, I have restored and deprodded Recon Optical. It had been deleted per your prod. Feel free to try WP:AFD instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CORP notability requirements
I removed the prod tag on Edge Wireless. The reason given on the tag was "unsourced article on company that does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP". You may want to be careful saying that something doesn't meet notability requirements since Notability (which redirects from WP:CORP) says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." So, if you're saying company's article "does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP", you're saying that it has not been the subject of secondary sources. A Google search turns up acceptable secondary sources about this company (see Talk:Edge Wireless). Google turns up plenty of press releases too, but those don't count as secondary sources and I didn't count them as such. - Afiler 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your user name
fwiw :-) hike395 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

About notability
One thing to keep in mind: what you're reading are the opinions of individual editors. It doesn't mean any particular perspective has wide acceptance. Beware of editors with a tendency to present nonmainstream views as though they have wide acceptance. Friday (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At least you're hiding your comments better now. Maybe someday you'll take me up on the challenge as to how my views are outside the mainstream, but I stopped holding my breath ages ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Songs
I condensed the Song criteria at WP:Songs, but also copied the result to WP:Music as a new section. I think that in either case it needs fine tuning, but support at Music could mitgate the need for a separate guideline. What do you think? --Kevin Murray 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the policy on crating guidelines and policies
Help:Creating policy is the new location of the policy on creating policies and guidelines and it had been demoted from a policy to a help page. This has been instrumental in curbing Creep. --Kevin Murray 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Micronations
You might find this discussion interesting Micronations. --Kevin Murray 15:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (highways)
--Kevin Murray 11:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reality Check?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject buses/Bus route list guide

Everest Capital
You tagged this article, Everest Capital, for deletion on 3rd April 2007. Tag removed 5th April 2007 with no comment. Have reinstated it (maybe shouldn't have?) Now what? All the best.Mmoneypenny 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Karis Jagger
I (as the crator of the page) do no get why you left that crap on Karis Jagger's page. She is not just the daughter of a famous person she has worked on several movies and if she does not deserve a page than other movie crew members do not desrve page's either and there are several of those. And neither does Jade Jagger if karis doesent. And i do not see your pointless crappy letter on jade's page. --Tweetsabird 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Aitzaz Ahsan
I think you marked this page for speedy as empty, without noticing that the content had been maliciously blanked. I removed the tag of course, but if you think there's some other reason to delete, please indicate. He seems to have been a member of the national legislature and thus notable. DGG 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

and not just national legislatures
Whether or not it makes sense, Afd discussions have consistently held that all members of state legislatures are notable. I've tried to convince people otherwise, and always failed--consensus is consensus. So I had to remove the tag from Paul Krekorian DGG 05:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Desorption/Ionization on Silicon
Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Desorption/Ionization on Silicon) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. andy 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Graham Day article
I removed the speedy tag on the article Graham Day because the version you tagged had been vandalized. I restored the article to the last version before the vandalism. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Novogradac & Company LLP
Unlike Corvus Cornix, you actually made some productive edits to the [Novogradac] page. Being new to the wikiediting, thought the tag placer was just being a jerk, by putting it back on. I would see a tag, make some edits that I thought would have made the article better and in conjunction also removed the tag (feeling I'd addressed the point). Others had made edits in an effort to make language more neutral and to reference to sources. The page seems pretty concise now. User:1wombat1

Template
I saw you removed the links to Behind the name for the template, Info Given Name revised. May I inquire why you think these are bad External Links? And do you have any recommendations for better links that serve the same purpose? Remember 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Further question
Also, why did you think that the SSA was a bad external link? Remember 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Street Gospel
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Street Gospel. I do not think that Street Gospel fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because the link gives sufficient context for anyone intersted to find info needed to expand this. i have suggested a merge. WP:AFD would also be an option. But this just isn't a speedy as it stands. An album by a musician or band notable enough to have an article is unlikely to be a speedy, IME. I request that you consider not re-tagging Street Gospel for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nrhp Disambiguation pages vs. Redirects
Hey, you recently reverted a few pages I switched from redirects to diambiguations. I am thankful for your help, but the reason I switched them was because soon other pages will need to be added to the disambiguation (you can see that places exist with the same name in different states by clicking the "what links here" link.) Its not a big deal, I can switch it again later, its just a huge project and I'll probably lose track of it if i'm not careful. Next time though I'll put something in the talk page as to why its a disambig. Thanks, pw 11:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm referring to Morrison House and Shaw Farm, I cleaned them up a bit. pw 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remove autoblock

 * Sorry about that, give me a moment. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AGK has cleared this, please let me know if you encounter any further issues (ala autoblocks). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is everything okay? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of rocks
OK, the re-naming of List of rocks to List of rock types was no problem. However, you then changed to old redirect to list of famous rocks and placed a speedy tag on it??? I cannot understand your reasoning there - you don't speedy a page with between 50-100 incoming links. I have re-instated the redirect to List of rock types and removed the absurd speedy tag. Please be more careful in the future. Vsmith 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for the initial mix-up. I have now changed all the mainspace articles that linked to list of rocks and made them link to list to list of rock types; all that remain are some talk pages and the like. I now want to speedy delete list of rocks so I can reverse the redirect - it will only be gone for a few minutes.  This will make rocks consistent with many other articles (list of trees, list of gemstones, etc.)  Is this ok now? Thanks. (feel free to respond here) UnitedStatesian 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of notable Old . ..
Hey Xn4, I noticed you have done a lot of edits to these alumni list articles, and that they have been created with "notable" in the title. Per the WP manual of style guidelines for lists (found at WP:MOSLIST), the list titles should not contain "notable" or similar qualifiers: those qualifiers are assumed. As a result, I will be moving all of these articles to the similar name that does not contain "notable," and if you could help me out, I would definitely apprecaite it - its a big job. At a minimum, could I ask that, per the guideline, you not use "notable" or "famous" or any other similar qualifier in the title of any future list articles your create? And spread the word on this guideline to others? Thanks! UnitedStatesian 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, UnitedStatesian. With all due respect, I think this is a matter for discussion. Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Lists says "Convention: Put a list of Xs as list of Xs, rather than Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of noted Xs, list of all Xs, etc. Lists (stand-alone lists) aims to be more restrictive, but then what you call 'alumni list articles' are not 'stand alone lists'. The following is at WikiProject Schools:Separate alumni pages: "It is not necessary to include "notable" in the article title. As everything on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Notability (people) having "notable" in the title is redundant." The guidance then gives a link to List of notable Old Gowers, without adverse comment on it. The problem with these lists is that most 'alumni' (a word the Americans use much more than the British) are not notable, and users are inclined to clutter the lists up with red links to non-notable people who will never have an article. So, while it isn't necessary to include 'notable', it's useful, to remind everyone that these are not all-embracing lists. As this is an area I work on and it seems you don't, would you please propose your changes at the WikiProject Schools Talk page first and establish a consensus? I shall take part in that discussion, if there is one.


 * By the way, when you write "At a minimum, could I ask that...", can you please clarify what authority you are speaking with? Xn4 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above
Without replying to my comments above, and also without the discussion suggested, you've moved List of notable Old Gowers to List of Old Gowers and changed that part of the guidance at WikiProject Schools:Separate alumni pages. I haven't noticed that you've made any of your other intended changes yet, and I have to say I'm really not happy about your approach to this matter. Please reply. Xn4 14:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have opened the talk topic you requested at WikiProject Schools Talk page, and look forward to the disscussion. In terms of authority, I have none other than that of a fellow WP editor - I thought we could make requests of each other, and see that you belelve the same (since you made a request of me).  Is "would you please" more polite language than "could I ask that you"?  UnitedStatesian 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove so many entries from List of bicycle manufacturing companies?
Hello UnitedStatesian, i am wondering why you are deleting so many entries from the list of bicycle manufacturing companies. It appears you feel that an entry without an article is not an opportunity for Wikipedia to improve its comprehensive coverage, but instead an opportunity for you to remove unhelpful information. However, many of these red links did have external links to the companies' website, providing information that they are, indeed, a bicycle manufacturing company, thus meeting the criteria for inclusion in this list. Furthermore, on one of your initial edits you cited WP:MOSLIST as having something to say about notability. However, the article referenced is concerned merely about the presentation of lists, not the content.

Finally, as two concrete examples of valuble content you have removed to the detriment of Wikipedia: 'Supercycle' and 'Gary Fisher'. Gary Fisher bikes is one of the older mountain bike companies, and has been innovative for the last 20 years, greatly influencing the North American mountain bike market, and probably globally as well. Supercycle is a cheap bike company, but in Western Canada, where i live, they must have 40% market share, I see supercycles every day.

It seems you are using Wikipedia itself a source of notability, and then editing Wikipedia to reflect that determination. This is circular reasoning, and results in the culling of legitimately notable information because external sources are not used.

Can you explain your zealous editing? —Fudoreaper 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Allah, Army and America
Hi, You tagged deleted my article with title "Allah, Army and America"..

And gave reason that:

No sources that provide evidence that this concept is sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia article

Even though I believe i Have given link to some articles stating about it and even the statement by a major pakistani politician..

And even though I am not a pro on wikipedia but i think: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

So i am again putting some articles which refers to it..

Sunday Herald: Ireland :

http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.1691663.0.0.php

Indian Express

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990220/ige20053.html

Daily Times, Pakistan http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C10%5Cstory_10-4-2006

guardian, UK

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_bremmer/2007/09/the_generals_are_still_waiting_in_the_wings.html

On googling I have found:

Results 1 - 100 of about 755 for "Allah, Army and America" OR "Allah, The Army and America"

I hope it will satisfy you and you will undelete the article.. thanks in advance.. --&#91;&#91;User:imdabs&#124;amit (&#91;&#91;User talk:imdabs&#124;talk]]) Amit Амит  अमित  ਅਮਿਤ]] 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability (years)
Active discussion has resumed regarding the status of this project. --Kevin Murray 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Before tagging for deletion
It is prudent to check at least the references listed in the article. Cf. Alfred Kroner. As clear a 3rd party RS statement of international notability -- fame, even -- as I have ever seen. I added the key content to the article as a quote. DGG (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable people lists
You changed the title page List of notable people from Bolton to List of people from Bolton. In the edit summary you mentioned ".... Per guideline, lists should not have "notable" in their titles". The problem is you didn't actually mentioned which guideline page. There are many Wikipedia guideline pages. Please let me which one. I wasn't aware about this until the changes took place.

I've noticed that the other lists at Category:Lists of English people haven't changed, just the Bolton one. Is there a reason they haven't been changed?

Agree that some other types of lists didn't need "notable" in the title, for example the change from Notable actors in Coronation Street to List of Coronation Street actors which now includes them all and not just the "notable" ones. For places, however, should still have "notable" in the title, otherwise anyone from a town/city could be included. Cwb61 (talk)  21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cwb61, I have also disagreed with UnitedStatesian on this. He's correct that there is a general convention that the word 'notable' is unnecessary in the names of lists, but (1) a convention isn't a strict rule, and (2) this convention seems to me to make best sense (as you say) for lists in which the word 'notable' can be inferred, such as List of Presidents of the United States. I find it a useful word in lists which seek to exclude the non-notable and which without 'notable' in the title need regular cleanup because inexperienced users add non-notable people to them. You and I see this because we actually work on such lists. Xn4  12:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Johned
Please could you drop the article creator a short note explaining that the article's being considered for speedy deletion. It's just a courtesy. On the other hand, you could install WP:TWINKLE and it'd do the hard work for you! --Dweller 10:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of notable Old Xaverians, List of notable Old Wellingtonians, etc.
I see you have moved List of notable Old Xaverians and List of notable Old Wellingtonians and others to List of Old Xaverians and List of Old Wellingtonians, etc. which surprises me, as I thought we had agreed here that the question of these school lists needed more discussion. I have now started a thread at WikiProject Lists: Please consider whether the word 'notable' can be included in the name of a list. In the mean time, would you please make no more such changes? Xn4 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why you decided to make my page for speed deletion
Hi, You was the one who nominated my page for speed deletion is it? but why uuhh. The only thing you were needed to do is to correct it and not to nominate an article for speed deletion tha's not fair it's such humilition because your an administrator that's why your embarassing us. No problem keep moving with your effort don't think even to correct any page but your always thinking for speed deletion. I don't think any one can tolerate this shit anymore no one can do so. I my self i use to write an article after few hrs I correct it, But i didn't even correct one of my article, I found huge non sense a message in my talk page, What do you think am going to do if your already nominated my page for speed deletion. Please give significant reason and don't think any page suppose for speed deletion. --Mohammed Lupinga 06:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cats in the sandbox
I've commented the categories out from the article so it should be good. I was not aware that the article would actually show up on an official listing of categories beyond my sandbox, so thanks for the help! Voracious Reader 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of companies by revenue
Sorry for having reverted your revert of that edition of mine where I had deleted the stock symbols.

While I do not think that keeping them is really useful (since most of the largest companies of the world are traded worldwide), the main reason why I changed the article back to my edition is that there was some new information provided by myself (headquarters) which was going to be lost. Anyway, I am copying what you and I have discussed so far into a talk page, as requested ;)

Ignis Fatuus 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Listwashing
Hey, thanks for cleaning up after me :)

Shentino 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)