User talk:Xenonice

October 2007
A tag has been placed on Latasha Show requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WWGB 13:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of HMS Ontario (1780)
I have nominated HMS Ontario (1780), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/HMS Ontario (1780). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Fraud talk to me  01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Siemens
Hi, I reverted your change to the Siemens page because in the past the consensus seemed to be to keep it point to the company. We are open to changing it, but please discuss it first at Talk:Siemens (you can see our previous discussion there). Also, there is already a Siemens (disambiguation) page that we should use if we do decide to have it point to a dab page. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Labeled diagrams of dioxane
You might want to use standard chemical typography there, with o, m, and p designators in italics. DMacks (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

References on Conversion of units
ZOMG, yes! We really need to change the main references to a standard format, ideally citation or another template from WP:CIT. Otherwise, the page will become a nightmare to maintain. Physchim62 (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that you (Xenonice) added some ISBNs to the article, with the edit summary "(cleaned up reference formatting, added ISBN links (eventually will need to switch to bibtex format anyways, i think))". Could you explain what you mean by bibtex format?


 * Physchim62, there are those who HATE citation templates and will not tolerate a campaign to change ordinary references to templates. This has been discussed in the past at WT:CITE. I don't hate citation templates, but I feel they have many serious flaws and were developed in a haphazard fashion. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find people who HATE just about any guideline you can care to image around here! There are those that HATE the fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a MMORPG…
 * My own views on citation templates are similar to those of Jc3s5h – you can find plenty of things that are wrong with them. On the other hand, they do provide some sort of standardized reference format, however imperfect, and can save a lot of work (see Category:Chemistry citation templates for example.
 * When I said "the page will become a nightmare to maintain", I was thinking of the case of an editor who wishes to import a reference for a given conversion factor from another article: what should be the format of that reference in Conversion of units? Physchim62 (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think it would be more common to bring in a new conversion factor direct from the source, rather than another Wikipedia article. In any case, the inability to always copy citations from one article to another is inherent in Wikipedia's decision not to adopt any one citation style. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Woah! I didn't realize what can of worms I was opening! Yeah, citations... The citation template itself is an attempt to bring BibTeX citation technology to wikipedia, and I think it is exactly what will resolve these issues we have to deal with. The cool thing (potentially, if not at the present state of this template), is that the software will separate the content of a citation from its style, and that's how it already works in bibTeX. So, here is what I think our problem with citations is (correct me if I am wrong): many people (like myself) maintain their own citation lists, and each medium (such as Journals, books, etc) has its own citation style, as does the unit conversion page here on Wikipedia. Naively thinking, one would have to put up either with (a) having to manually reformat one's citations for each medium or (b) having a potpourri of citation styles in the same article, which would look funny. Well, the current bibTeX implementation already solves this problem: the content of the citation is always in the same format, almost identical to the citation (that's why I just copied and pasted from my citation database originally, happy to avoid meaningless formatting work), but the style is generated by the software plug-in that is the responsibility of the medium owner to specify and maintain. I know, current implementation of the citation template doesn't do it yet, but, if it evolves in that direction (just as BibTeX did), one will end up (hopefully) with all the citations in that format (easy on the editors), and the person with the strongest (or earliest) preference of a style will be in charge of supplying a formatting structure (maybe something like ... I am daydreaming here), and everybody will be happy. The man shall think, and the computer should do the dirty, meaningless work.Xenonice (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Meldin


The article Meldin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is a copy of the vespel page, with some instances of the word "vespel" replaced with "meldin 7000". I don't see anything here that supports its notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wizard191 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)