User talk:Highfructosecornsyrup

Hi. leave me messages here, I guess. :)

Hi there

You seem to have demonstrated a very quick learning rate of Wikipedia procedures and other matters. Would you mind if I inquired if you have previously edited under a different name or possibly as an IP? JoshuaZ 02:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I be flattered or offended by this question? lol. The answer is no. But thanks. (Actually, I hardly have a clue what I'm doing but I've been using the Wiki for years.) Highfructosecornsyrup 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a mix. The inquiry was mainly because a) schoool deletions are a very contentious topic b) some of your comments in the deletion discussions seemed to indicate familiarity with previous discussions c) your edits indicated a strong knowledge of Wiki syntax. JoshuaZ 03:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sterling Volunteer Fire Department

If Sterling, Virginia is notable enough for an article, then it stands to reason that municipal functions such as their volunteer fire department are notable enough to at least be mentioned in their article. Since this article is rather long, it therefore makes sense to branch it off into its own article rather than having this info dominate Sterling's article. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Empire State Building is notable enough for an article, then it stands to reason that its boiler room is notable enough to at least be mentioned in its article. Since such article would rather long, since it would have to discuss a lot of engineering details and list the names of all the stationary engineers, it therefore makes sense to branch it off into its own article rather than having this info dominate the Empire State Building's article.

Guy, most of the current content is subtrivial and the empty headers promise even less to come: even the 9/11 reference boils down to "we stayed home while other departments rendered mutual aid". This rates maybe ONE sentence -- possibly two if you're being generous -- in Sterling, Virginia. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "City and its fire department" and "Building and its boiler room" would be considered NOT a match on a comparative logic test. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what the relevant distinction is? I don't see it. JoshuaZ 17:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I could, but I can't think of any reason why I should bother. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More research you haven't bothered with

Wikipedia currently HAS NO notability guidelines for schools, therefore this tag's placement is arbitrary and meaningless

• Wikipedia:Schools
• Wikipedia:Schools3

Those don't look like meaningless discussions to me. And certainly the general principle of Wikipedia is not a directory applies. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, I'm not kidding here: if this condescending "more research you haven't bothered with" crap is your style of communication, do not communicate with me. Talk to the hand. Anyone who can read English can plainly see that Wikipedia:Schools and Wikipedia:Schools3 are not guidelines yet. They both say "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" in big plain letters. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf education

It would be helpful if you did express your impression of the advert tag's appropriateness or inappropriateness on the arbitration page, as this is an active issue right now. An objective voice would be fresh and helpful. [[User:Hgilbert, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

POV warrior was not an insult, or in anyway expressed as derogatory in nature. Yes, but you have a clear POV and from your very first mainspace edit that has been apparent. Mr Feldspar isnt reverting to his version as you seem to believe. If you consult any article talk page you'll see weeks, months even years of discussion involving hundreds of editors, all working to achieve consensus. Which, is our goal throughout. A well sourced, verifiable, NPOV, stable version.

You are welcome to your POV, well all have them. However, you are much more welcome to join in the discussions, express your opinion, and advise/listen and work with other editors together. Otherwise, yes, it is your POV literally against the community until you do. Make sense?  Glen  01:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is it you think my POV is?? Do you think I am on some sort of mission to whitewash criticism of Scientology? This has nothing to do with being pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology, this is about there being no sources attached to important statements on Scientology versus the Internet and Scientology Justice. When an article lacks sources, are we not supposed to place the "sources" tag on it? And isn't the "citation needed" supposed to be placed on important statements that lack citations? And aren't we supposed to use the talk page to explain reversions of Lisa McPherson's obviously unfair placement alongside David Miscavige's name in the "People" section of the Scientology template? Highfructosecornsyrup 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont particularly care what your POV is, whether you are a direct decendant of L-Ron or simply like to see "sourced articles pertaining to, Scientology" is irrelevant. Both are points of view - and, all I am saying is that you will find your efforts are much more fruitful if you, a) Slow down, b) advise your intentions and explain why you are doing what you are doing beforehand, then c) make the changes you want, or wait for feedback then act together.

This way, everyone knows where you are coming from, and can agree, discuss, or explain why they feel otherwise.... and this way it wont look (and he's exactly right which is why I messaged him in the first place) like "you're making high volumes of very obviously POV changes"  Glen  02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he is NOT "exactly right". Nothing you or he say can change the fact that the sentences I put "citation needed" tags on DID NOT HAVE CITATIONS. Does it honestly not bother you, as a presumably fair and impartial editor, that many important claims being made do not have citations to back them up? And are you really saying I need to ask everyone's permission before I can try to call attention to this with the proper tags? Is that not what the tags are for? Highfructosecornsyrup 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Trinity college of biblical studies aFD

Are you familiar with wp:school? I'm wondering why you would put your support behind keeping this self promoting article that does not include anything encyclopedic. Alan.ca 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOL is neither a policy nor a guideline, and probably never will be. And I don't see the article as "self promoting". Highfructosecornsyrup 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work

Great job on the Lisa McPherson article. It is reasonably neutral and readable now. Well Done. ---Slightlyright 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have answered your question on my discussion page. Jpierreg 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Chan's algorithm

Hi there. I've restored Chan's algorithm, because I believe the reason you supplied for deletion is invalid (little or no context). The article is as good as any stub I've ever seen, stating that it's an algorithm for computing the context hull, with suitable links, and a brief description of the algorithm. If you feel it's too technical or not notable enough for its own article, please raise these issues on the talk page. Deco 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The article states that it exists and states what it is, but doesn't state why it's notable. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)