User talk:Airumel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 10:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)



Recreating deleted articles[edit]

There is a procedure for restoring deleted articles, and it is found at Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. However, there was not much debate about Scienticity when it was on Afd, and despite your claims that it is not fancruft or nonsense, it is, by the article's own content, a neologism and as such is not likely to be restored. If you wish to promote the concept, perhaps you should try another venue - a website of your own - and if and when scienticity ceases to become a neologism it may be more successful in gaining space at WP. KillerChihuahua 20:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah what the puppy said. Go to WP:VFU and make a case. And please sign your name with four tildes ~~~~ — Dunc| 20:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a neologism. It's the subject of an important academic article published over five years ago, and cited by many other sociologists. Your inability to find the word on other webites is a reason it *should* be included in Wikipedia. Airumel 20:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC) User:Airmel

If it was the subject of one article, published 5 years ago, and has not gained currency among sociologists to the extent of more important papers or preferably sociology textbooks, it is not only a neologism but a failed neologism. If you disagree, please make this case on WP:VFU as Dunc has suggested. Further discussion here about an article which has been deleted twice and speedy deleted once will serve no purpose. KillerChihuahua 20:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I can accept wider usage as a prerequisite to inclusion here. But if a scientific or disciplinary idea has to appear in a textbook before it can be an article, scores and perhaps hundreds of articles need to be marked for deletion. Airumel 20:47, 4 Demember 2005

I said "preferably" its not even close to a requirement. KillerChihuahua 13:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that there are not hundreds but probably thousands of articles here that should be marked for deletion. (I don't promise that we agree about which ones.) I suggest watching Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today for a day or two, then joining in and voting on a few. Once you've done that, feel free to tag one or two of those scores of dud articles. Wikipedia is complex. It takes a while to learn how it works. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Pure sociology[edit]

I noticed you did not state your postion, I presume it is Keep and identify yourself as the creator of the article. You might want to read through WP:AFD so you understand the way it works. KillerChihuahua 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been reading through that and several other areas. I think I understand now. Thanks for the help and pointers. Airumel 20:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Any time you have a question, feel free to post it on my talk page and I will help if I can. KillerChihuahua 20:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I remember reading a page about citation policy and practices yesterday, but can't find it now. Mind pointing me? Also, I see discussion of this AfD nomination, but can't figure out where voting happens (or do only administrators vote?). Airumel 20:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Follow the link to WP:AFD. We don't call it "voting" although that's what it looks like. Its an opinion, followed by reasoning for the opinion. Sometimes they get messy with a lot of comments. I have seen quite a few articles on Afd which were kept, including one I changed my vote on - the creator of the article paid attention to the criticism, edited the article extensively, and posted on the talk page of everyone who had said "delete" - you can see the entry on my talk page at User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Rewrite_of_ACQ-Kingdom_Broadcasting_Network (just click on that and you can read it and follow the included link to the article, and to the Afd page for that article.) Any editor can enter an opinion. You don't have to be an Admin, although usually you must be registered. An admin is required to close the Afd and carry out the consensus (Keep, Delete, Tag for cleanup, etc.) KillerChihuahua 21:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite[edit]

...is found at WP:CITE if you have not already found it - is that what you were looking for? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks much! Airumel 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Lafter[edit]

Vandalizing Troll, LOL. Thanks for making me laugh for a brief moment! Thankszoreos.--Gephart 05:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dirk, Count of Holland[edit]

If you want to know how to have articles deleted, look at the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You may wish to make your argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirk, Count of Holland. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings again[edit]

How are things going? You seem to have "learned the ropes" well. I am glad to see you didn't let your early difficulties discourage you from staying and contributing. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. I spent hours and hours and hours reading WP and help files, following discussions, reading lots of talk and discussion pages, combing through page histories to understand what flies and what falls. Still lots to learn, and I've been unable to visit daily during a 2-week holiday to families (hers and mine). But I continue to contribute where and when I can, and will get back on the track of regular (daily?) contributions asap.
And when I feel that I've learned enough, and garnered enough experience, I'll likely ask to be made an admin. There are some articles, for areas about which I have great expertise, for which undoing vandalism is quite a chore, and the admin privelege of quick reverts would both save me mucho time and, thereby, help me contribute more to Wiki.
Thanks (again) for your early help and guidance - even if you did try to axe an important article that didn't, IMHO, deserve AfD status. ;) Airumel 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You are always welcome to any help I can provide - and as for my putting an article of yours on Afd, well, lets look at the long view - you learned a lot about how to write a better Wikipedia article, Afd, and so on! I am glad you didn't let it discourage you. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits to The O'Reilly Factor[edit]

If you want to copy edit the article that's one thing. However your statements in the intro to the article are controversial and no consensus has been reached. These issues have already been discussed in the Bill O'Reilly controversies article. I modified the edit to provide a link there. I do not care if edits are pro or anti O'Reilly as long as they are accurate and not based on assumption. MrMurph101 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) I probably went to far by reverting your entire edit and apologize for that. MrMurph101 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Murph - I respect that your cautiousness in avoiding the controversy, and appreciate the wisdom of the most recent you've made. The yelling, finger-pointing, and "shut up"ing are factual elements, not POV, but I can understand covering them in the controversies area, instead. Thanks for not reverting the other copy edits - they were CERTAINLY not POV, and add importantly to the readability of the article. :) Airumel 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Ellis Godard[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ellis Godard, 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. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. 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. Corvus cornix 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)