User talk:Dougmerritt

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


Hello Dougmerritt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken Arnold[edit]

Hey great, thanks for pointing that out :) -- Jon Dowland 08:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I didn't revert you. The history shows that the IP vandalized the article and I reverted their vandalism before you edited it. After you made your contribution, they removed it. I'm sorry that someone removed your contribution, but twasn't me. I have warned the IP again. Happy editing.—WAvegetarian(talk) 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My question regarding vector software[edit]

Hello, and thank you very much for your helpful answer. I hope I clarified my question a little: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2007_March_27#A_question_on_history_of_vector_software Crocodealer 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name) is proposed for deletion[edit]

Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name) has been proposed for deletion. --Orange Mike 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


The consensus of WP:YEARS is that anniversaries of real events should be listed in year articles only if there are real present plans to "celebrate" (or otherwise commemorate) that anniversary. Anniversaries of real non-events seem even less likely. I don't really know if there's a consensus for fictional anniversaries of fictional events, or even fictional anniversaries of real events, but it seems unlikely. Some of your reorganization of 2042 seems good, but the addition of December 21 seems inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur; I have positive memories of you from Usenet nearly two decades ago -- mostly from sci.math, but the little that Google Groups retains from the early era jogs my memory that you also posted to sf-lovers related groups, at least during the reorganization that I was very active in.
So I'm doubly disappointed to find myself somewhat at odds with you here.
First off, you said some of my reorganization seemed good (I would hope so; I was adding in Month events as specified explicitly by WP:YEARS), yet you nonetheless did a complete reversal of my edits to those several years. That's inappropriate; if you agree with one part but disagree with another part, you should at most delete the part you disagree with, not just revert altogether. If the motivation was that your time is too valuable to edit rather than revert, and that the author (me in this case) can re-do the part of the contribution that is appropriate -- well, that would be disrespectful and anti-commutative (it breaks the Golden Rule), so I hope that's not it.
Secondly, although it's true I phrased it as a (real, not fictional) anniversary of a fictional event, that's merely a matter of phrasing. It is the simple truth that the dates that I added are, in objective truth, Gregorian anniversaries of the restart of the Mayan long cycle calendar.
Thirdly, you are appealing to consensus, but was there in fact even discussion, let alone consensus, on what to put on Year pages that are still in the future? There is obviously a need for *some* difference, e.g. there are predictions on some future Year pages, and a "prediction" only makes sense concerning the future, not the past.
(I am probably on weakest ground when I said "Celebrations planned", because in part that was partly hyperbole, but not entirely -- I threw a "Big Brother" themed party for New Year's Eve the day before 1984 started, and it is not at all unusual for people to do such things. I intend to celebrate (if I still live) the anniversaries I added, and I have every reason to think (and predict) that other people will, too. It's an obvious idea. So I think even that part of what I added is defensible.)
And last but not least, on your Talk, someone apparently familiar with you said "you know the great damage done by mythologies and pseudoscience, and you are a skeptic." That's what I thought about you, too, so here's the really strange thing: My whole motivation for adding these anniversaries of the non-destruction of the world on Dec 21 2012 arose from my long (and increasing) annoyance with the large number of nut jobs who really do believe the world will end on that date. I would think you would be sympathetic to that cause.
I won't edit-war you, but I wish you would reconsider your reversions, given the above issues. Thanks, Dougmerritt (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see your point, but the people who would be interested in celebrating the non-end of the world are, for the most part, the ones who didn't believe the world would end. It just doesn't seem likely there would be actual celebrations that could be documented, even after the fact.
The general rule is that, for a past anniversary to be listed in a year article, there have to have been documemented celebrations or notable plans to celebrate. For a future anniversary, there have to be, at least, documented plans. (And, your intent to celebrate doesn't constitute "documentation", even if I believe you. We need reliable sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but that replies to just one of my points. What about, for example, your doing full reversions? Dougmerritt (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I consider your other changes neutral (neither helpful or harmful), for the most part. Perhaps the "revert" text is too strong, but I probably would have used undo for the lot, rather than attempting to separate the addition of anniversaries and the reorderings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gharlane of Eddore (pen name)[edit]

I have nominated the article you created for Gharlane of Eddore (pen name) at AFD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gharlane of Eddore (pen name) if you wish to provide input. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ken Arnold for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ken Arnold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Arnold until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)