User talk:ChildofMidnight

When the clock strikes midnight...

Update on the Status of Schedule Chicken

I just wanted to follow-up and see where the Schedule Chicken entry is in terms of keep vs. delete. Do you know if they voted on it already?

Thanks--Apelbaum (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Discussion of how to include the information from: Online Collaboration Tools in Elementary Education‎ on Wikipedia

OK--Child of Midnight. Please elaborate....."Strong Delete This poorly written piece is wholly unencyclopedic and doesn't demonstrate any notability. It's also kind of shocking that something written about educational tools is written in this manner." How is it "poorly" written...because of its format? Why is it shocking that a piece on educational tools is written "in this way." And, what does the phrase "in this way" mean? This poorly written critique lacks substantial evidence to support its claims. If you were an elementary teacher, you'd recognize the notability of the subject. There may be several mistakes in the way this piece is written, but your comments are far from helpful. They are vague and offensive. From your site, it appears as though your development in Wikipedia "knowledge" is still developing. Try constructive criticism, why don't you? MiShe11e38 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page:

See your talk page. I've asked questions there. My concerns are lack of constructive feedback. Your critique doesn't give me anything to work with, and appears subjective and trivial. I am new to Wikipedia, and obviously am in a learning curve. From your site, it appears you are not that far ahead of me on the learning curve, and thus makes your critiques of my submissions even less valid in my eyes. MiShe11e38 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)MiShe11e38 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article you've posted isn't consistent with the writing style or content appropriate to an encyclopedia.

• 1)The title for your subject is an essay title not an encyclopedic topic. See: Collaborative learning for a more appropriate title and an article that needs a lot of work where your efforts would be more useful.
• 2)The way the article is written is verbose and seems very much like a how-to guide or an essay.
• 3)I highly recommend you slow down, and ask for some help and guidance on a better approach for the information you're trying to add. If you don't think I'm a good source you're welcome to type {{helpme}} on your discussion page with any questions you have. Editors will answer them. Which is pretty cool! And a lot better way to go than rushing trying to save an article that has some fundamental problems that you need to understand FIRST.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I appreciate your help when you answer in a clear, constructive way. Stating that it looks like an essay is inline with the other comments and is a lot more constructive than "poorly written" and that you are "shocked." I've made some suggestions, and would like further feedback from you in the manner in which you provided above.

I have no idea of how to change the title, however. Nor, is my mind working clearly enough at this point to think of a more precise title. And, unfortunately, time is of the essence in my case. I'm not sure you aren't correct about the content being inappropriate for an independent article. I looked at the other two related articles though, and I think they ought to be merged with mine!  :) MiShe11e38 (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the information in your article is a lot better than the information in the other article. But the title of the other article is far far more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Think about what titles are in an encyclopedia. "George Washington", NOT "George Washington's most important achievements". See what I mean? His most important achievements might be a good section and addition to the George Washington article! I think you are stressed because of the deletion. But your time is best served copying what you have (which I presume you have anyway since ths material appears to be part of an essay project unrelated to Wikipedia) and discussing how to add the content and how to format it so it's useful for this encyclopedia. The article you are working on now is NOT going to survive. But it contains some excellent ideas and references that would be useful elsewhere, and this encyclopedia is a collaborative effort, so you can add the appropriate parts of your article to another article that already exists. What do you think? Is it important that you create the article from scratch? If so I am willing to consider how to achieve that goal. You were right by the way, I looked again and my comments on the deletion were not well phrased. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I forget that I can just go into the other article, huh? That seems so weird to me. The problem with this piece is that when we started writing it, the parameters of the assignment were unclear. I was also dealing with being the only native speaker in a group of four. And the other four are quite opinionated. Therefore, between lack of direction, and their ideas, and granted, the sample the prof gave, our encyclopedia entry became a paper. We didn't even realize we were truly submitting it to Wikipedia until after I'd stayed up all night (literally) paraphrasing my teammates direct copy and pastes from other articles, or fixing their attempted original English work. OK--perhaps my frustration is deeper than I realized!!!!!. Well, if it isn't going to stand alone, let's see if it is good enough now to insert into the other article. I think it is much more concise now and inline sourced as one contributor mentioned.....and less essayish??????One of the contributors mentioned the CSCL (Computer-supported Collaborative Learning) article as well. Really, they should all be combined. Mine are tools that should fall under CSCL, and CSCL is a means of collaborative learning. What ideas did you have about polishing it so that it could stand alone? BTW--thanks for considering what I said about your original commentary. You've actually turned out to be quite helpful. MiShe11e38 (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mishelle. First of all, there is a lot of good information in your article. It's written more for academia though, so it's a bit academic (meaning wordy). It makes sense that it would be difficult to rewrite the work of non-native speakers, but you don't have to defend the article, I apologize for my overly critical comments. The core of the problem seems to be trying to post an essay (or combination of essays) in whole into Wikipedia. Think about if every doctoral thesis or college essay was put up on Wikipedia... But with some work we can filter out the aprropriate information and make it encyclopedic. I will take a stab at cleaning up the intro and you can see what you think. You can always revert. :) My other suggestion would be to think about a title that someone might actually search for. "Collaborative learning" seems like a good place to merge into. If you don't want to merge, what about the title "internet in education"? We can also link the search terms "internet and education" "the internet and education" "educational tools on the internet" and "the internet in exducation". ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I tightened up and reworded the intro. See what you think. Am I interfering an assignment? Gulp. The intro can now be expanded and the last sentence fixed. You'll see this sentence says what's in the article. But the intro should summarize the information, I didn't really know what was information is in the article, so I'll leave it to you to summarize the content and the sections for the intro. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I talked with my professor today. He is perfectly happy with it being merged. We discussed an entire area for deletion, the reasoning section. Although, in looking at the other two possibilities: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) or Collaborative Learning, they might best be served by adding it to the existing site within their structure. I am hesitant because that was completely the work of one of my teammates. I meet tonight with them in Second Life and so I'll bring it up to them. The Intro is much more concise. Thanks. How long does the process for deletion normally take? I see you convinced the originator to delay a bit...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.77.109 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as the deletion process, I'm not sure what actually spurs an administrator to close them and take action. I think it's partly a judgement call. But as the consensus is merge, and the nominator is on board, and there's ongoing discussion, I think you're okay. :) So relax.

As far as deleting sections, I haven't looked to see whether whole sections should be deleted. But I would suggest thinking broadly about what an encyclopedia is. There is another site Wikiuniversity, which as I understand has instruction materials more like the way this is written. In fact maybe it would be a good addition there!!!

But for the encyclopedia here, a how to guide or an essay isn't appropriate. So I would recommend trying to make it more of a straight description and explanation of the subject. So that will take some major adjustments to the article, as I tried to demonstrate with the intro. If you look at encyclopedia entries you will find the language very concise and straight forward (although dry). Academic language is far more wordy. Actually just go to Wikipedia's main page and read how those articles are written. That's how this article should be written, and organized.

And remember to have fun. Don't stress about the deletion. You're learning about Wikipedia and about editing, so I think you're doing great.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One other question I have is whether the article is about collaborative learning? Because my other idea would be to title it: "Internet in education". We can also redirect so if people search "Internet and education" or "Internet education" it goes to the article. I know that's maybe a lot to think about. But what is the article going to be about? Probably some pieces belong in collaborative education and some pieces belong in elementary education and some pieces belong elsewhere. The topic title now is VERY specific and its more of an essay topic than an encyclopedia entry. Sorry if that's too much to consider. But I think if you're going to write and contribute to the encyclopedia you have to do it in a way that's appropriate to the encyclopedia even if that trumps the original intention of the assignment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey--I went ahead and redirected to CSCL. I cleaned up the CSCL entry a bit...I hate to just delete someone else's work. I have no idea if the original author even checks this anymore........ Thanks again for all of your help. MiShe11e38 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joan's on Third

I have responded to the editors who have expressed concerns and am happy to address them with any rewrites or sourcing necessary. I hope I will be given a chance to bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards and to demonstrate its notability. Its not just a restaurant, it's one of the premier gourmet food stores in LA, a busy breakfast, lunch and dinner destination for gourmands, and a major caterer for Hollywood elites. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Much, much better! Good job of fixing this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I also congratulate you on good job on the Joan's article, but could you please fix the references - they're a mess. Please look at WP:References and the templates {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite press release}} to see how to fix them. Also please work on expanding the lead section. Remember to avoid WP:Not and keep up the good work. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ChildofMidnight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Politics of Memory

I'm not sure what exactly your politics of history entails. But the politics of memory I though of had to do something we did in school. It was about Germany moving beyond the war generation. To some extent your "meaning how society and cultural memories are developed and passed on" would be right but it is not "epitomized by the saying 'Hisory is written by the victors.'" Would you like to work together on this? Of course we can incorporate both aspects as they both seem to fit, only definitionally differentiated.

ps- didn't know people read that page ;) Lihaas (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your page Lihaas. I guess it wasn't hidden well enough? I notice it's at the bottom of the page now...  :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I meant my main page, which is where I take it you found the subject. (it was the only place I had put it down). Anyway, I created something (quite a bit). I don't have my Germany sources with me (it was a school paper afterall), I can look to add those sources later on. Meanwhile you should add more that helps your side of it. My perspective wasn't the same as yours initially (although I have since found more such examples), but it can certainly be expanded. (Our pet project, eh?)

I also added a "politics of identity" at the bottom that sort of works with this. but that's longer term goal.

Go ahead and create a redirect (that way we can share credit for the creating the article when it becomes featured (here's hoping!)).

Your quote on the victors was good as it holds in most places. (maybe not in Cyprus though, really a draw there). I also found something brief of native americans, though i left it open to you. you can also remove the tag when your done. (are you from the Americas? b/c most people outside the continents arent quite aware of the same background we come from) We can then also add China and India and African countries (perhaps, as you can see with the rise of nativistic movements, although the term "politics of memory" may not be so strong. but we can work this out in discussion).

ps- you can remove the tag from History of slavery in Iran. Or maybe wait a few days to get WP:Silence for consensus

pps- got a lot of mumbo-jumbo in there. woops. we'll work it out though. Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in. Seen the article is building up.

Where do we stand now? I need to add something to the American section, and then the Cyprus can use some too. What are you planning to work on?

I've also been reading this books about Nuremberg/Tokyo and can add something there. I know it doesn't mention the politics of memory (either term), but it would quantify as per the definition. Do you think we should define first. Right now, it's too broad in definition, I think. Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A generous lad giving my marginable rewrite an award. Too kind! Thank goodness for a sliding scale

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Awarded for extraordinary effort in writing, rewriting, providing in-line citations, supplying references, proofreading, etc. etc., following the AfD nomination of History of slavery in Iran. (And even if it is to be deleted, you still deserve this.) Kudos! Drmies (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Stats

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Stepshep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Iran

Hello thank you for you edits on History of Iran it is much liked timur did sudject many men women,children however he was said to have loved the persian launges and so keeped the nobles alive and they sevred him thanks for you edits again please reply on my talk page,

Secthayrabe Ø

You're very welcome. I'm glad you approve. I'm sorry I don't have more expertise to offer in this area, but I've asked for outside help. I've also responded on your discussion page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think we should count it as slavery in Iran bye for now thanks once again,

Secthayrabe Ø

Subkulture

I don't want you to get the wrong idea about what is going on here. What I am trying to do is help you learn Wikipedia. I understand how it doesn't make sense at first glance, but after a little experience, you will grow to understand why some of are hard about policies, and quote them a lot.

From my experience, I can tell I like you already. You can disagree without being disagreeable, you will fight for something when you think you are right (without being a jerk). The only problem is that you haven't learned the policies here. That's cool, it takes a little time. Honestly, I think you have the right attitude, just not enough experience. I truly hope you stick around, work on some article, learn the system and stay involved. I think you have something to offer. Yes, I think you are mistaken about this one article, but you know what? I have been here two years, have over 8,000 edits, and yet 10% of the time or more, an AFD will go the opposite way I !voted. It happens a few times a week. Sometimes, I am simply wrong and figure this out after researching their arguments. Sometimes I am *right*, and just outnumbered by people who quickly vote and move on. You can't take it personal. If it gets deleted, you can ask the admin who closes it to move a copy to a sub page of your user page, and you can work on it over time, finding sources that are more clear. Then get an opinion of more experienced people, and when it is ready, recreate it. This is super common.

I just don't want you to get the wrong idea. Honestly, new users do well to start by editing for a while. AFD is a bitch, and you have to be thick skinned. It is easy to get pissed off. Trust me, I still do from time to time. Ok, more often. Anyway, I don't mean to write a book here, I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your attitude in debating, as well as your willingness to work hard to fix something. Stick around, and if you have a question about anything, feel free to ask me on my user page. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link for Goth Record Labels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Goth_record_labels

If someone wants to put them up for deletion, I suspect few would survive. My personal preference would be to put ref needed tags on all of them and then wait a few weeks. I think this would also make the case for deletion stronger if and when the time comes, and it would give anyone watching those pages the chance to provide refs to support the notability and verifiability of statements made in the articles.

I'm not against deleting articles that aren't on notable topics. But in my opinion Subkulture meets all the necessary criteria, and they have the references to back up that claim. So I recommend moving on to riper fruit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a case of "knowing they are notable, in my heart" and "I can show you". The problem is, Wikipedia requires "I can show you". As for lower fruit, rarely do I go on a purge hunt, as I instead try to source articles before deleting them, and that takes a while. I know some will just go and put up a bunch for deletion quickly, but that isn't really the policy. When I try and try and try to find sources for an article, but can't and have to !vote delete, at least I do so in good faith and with the full understanding of the lack of sources. Anyways, I would always prefer to find articles to save. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

your comment

I responded to it there and apologized on the other guy's talk page. You are quite correct--I was reacting more to the general overdeletion of the articles n this topic than to the specific nomination. I intended to be strong, and I intend to be, but I should not have used some of what I said there, but only in a more general context about the attitude towards fiction in general. So, my appreciation for your very appropriate remarks. DGG (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cher Doll Records

Please note refs added to the article per your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher Doll Records. Ty 05:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is thin, but does come from multiple sources, and I believe does show significance. It's a pre-web label, which accounts for the scarcity of web coverage, and no doubt there are print sources, but I don't have access to them. Indie music is not my field. I've emailed someone who seems to be Nancy Ostrander, the founder, to see if she can provide any. Ty 05:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious that imnotalwayssostupid is Ostrander's blog, which would be useful to reference some basic info.[1] It doesn't actually give a name apart from Nancy, though. Ty 05:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fuzzy and happy" quote is referenced in my version.[2] Ty 05:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi ChildofMidnight. Please note the preferred procedure for changing your position in AfD articles, which can be found in the fourth bullet point under "The following are practices that should be avoided:" in How to discuss an AfD. Bongomatic 06:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think you made two separate comments, whereas the best practices are:

• Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between<s> and </s> after *, as in "*Delete Speedy keep".

Bongomatic 06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion (not that it is material) would be to delete the previous comment (as no longer relevant) and put your recommendation after that. But it's totally minor and was meant more as a pointer for the future. Bongomatic 06:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Truly not a big deal to change or not, but to me it makes a lot of sense to keep one's comments in AfD together (unless they're responses to other users) so people can see concerns being addressed or not. Bongomatic 06:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your comments. I'm going to read up on it with fresh eyes manyana. My inclination is to put updates at the bottom of the page though... hmmmmm. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Joan's on Third

Hello, I want to make sure that you understand that I am not challenging your article. I am trying to help you improve it. These are clarifications on the points I am trying to make:

1. When you write an article try to avoid embellishing the subjects. Instead of "artisan foo" or "gourmet widgets" just say foo and widgets. This is what I mean by "peacock statements".
2. WP:Not - When you describe a business do not describe what is sold there unless the subject meets the standards of WP:Note. In this case do not say that Joan's sells cupcakes, cookies, Chocolates and dessert bars, just state she has a dessert bar that features baked goods, chocolates, candies and other treats.
3. References - When I say that they are a mess I mean that they need to be properly formatted. Here is an example using the first citation you provided:

This is what you had:

<ref>
[http://www.la2day.com/dining/there_s_no_place_like_joan_s|title=www.la2day.com/dining/there_s_no_place_like_joan_s There's no place like Joan's]
</ref>

Which gave you this in the references section:

There's no place like Joan's

This is how it should be formatted:

<ref name=la2day>
{{cite web
 |url    = http://www.la2day.com/dining/there_s_no_place_like_joan_s|title=www.la2day.com/dining/there_s_no_place_like_joan_s
 |title  = There's no place like Joan's
 |author = Jolie Loeb
 |work   = LA2Day
 |date   = 2007-09-17
 |accessdate = 2008-11-01
 |quote  = When it comes to Joan's, I am humbled. My devotion borders on addiction... 
}}
</ref>

Which gives you this in the references section:

Jolie Loeb (2007-09-17). "There's no place like Joan's". LA2Day. Retrieved 2008-11-01. When it comes to Joan's, I am humbled. My devotion borders on addiction. This little haven on Third, my Dean & Deluca come west, is a demonstrative embodiment of its luminary namesake.

I began by putting the basics of the reference formatting in place, all you will need to do is finish them. By naming the references, you can use them over and over without retyping the whole thing each time you need to cite something. So if you are using the LA2Day reference again later in the article all you will need to is type this after the second usage of the citation:

<ref name=la2day/>

Which will generate this in the references section:

^{A, B}Jolie Loeb (2007-09-17). "There's no place like Joan's". LA2Day. Retrieved 2008-11-01. When it comes to Joan's, I am humbled. My devotion borders on addiction. This little haven on Third, my Dean & Deluca come west, is a demonstrative embodiment of its luminary namesake.

Please fell free to ask me any questions,

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at A Nobody's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cat names

By the way, I was able to source another article under discussion if you would like to perhaps reconsider there? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Your best bet is to refute obviously false claims such as this by noting that several pages in a published encyclopedia is significant, third party coverage. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hmm. Consolidation can be good for putting several marginally notable pieces (e.g. character bios) into one place instead of several longer character bios scattered about. I think character lists are good because they seem to discourage adding excessive out-of-universe info to individual character bios. As for adding to a fictional character's article, I'm not exactly sure how you can help besides weed whacking the OR and plot summary out. One thing you can try is looking at a GA- or FA-class article that deals with fictional characters, and try to follow its pattern. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bethmanns and Rothschilds

Hey, I saw your response at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bethmanns_and_Rothschilds and I went searching for some sources and found some good ones that show its not just OR. I figured you might want to take a look and see if it changes your mind or not. The article isn't written the best but because its not OR from what I found I don't think it needs deletion. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I also had a quick reply on the AfD (which basically says I'll wait and see, haha). --Banime (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Invite!

You and another editor have really proven lately to be reasonably good at rescuing articles, as such, I invite you to join Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. By the way, if you would like to see some of my own work, please note this, which will hopefully be enough to convince any reasonable editor. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on canvassing. It is begin to look like you are coming perilously close to violating it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Articles for deletion/Break Even (band)

Why merge the albums if the band isn't notable enough? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you take two non-notable albums, and merge them with a non-notable band what do you get?

Hmmm...

Seriously though, I thought the band should be considered apart from the albums, and should include information from the album articles. That was my conclusion, but I won't defend the strength of its logic. I just wanted to evaluate the band and it's albums as one article. But perhaps the band article already includes all of that information? I'm willing to have another look. But my head is starting to hurt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the articles again, and my concern is that the band may in fact be notable, but before even considering that article it should include the information from the album articles. Then if you desire you can put it up for deletion. But in my opinion the albums themselves are not notable and are a clear cut case that should result in their being merged (and redirected) to the band article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cass Lewart

I commented at [3] DGG (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

References and Wiredawg

Hi ChildofMidnight. I noticed your recent edit of Wiredawg, where you placed a reference after the sentence "The 2E6X3 Telephone Systems or "Inside Plant" then adopted the WireDawg name while the 2E6X2 Cable Splicers took on the lesser known title of Cable Dawgs.". The reference you added does not support the claim in that sentence--there is no mention of either the term "Wiredawg" or "Cable Dawg" in either of the job descriptions. References are intended to provide credence to the propositiosn they follow. If the reference you added is intended to support the claim that 2E6X2 is the job code for cable splicers, the reference should probably be cast differently. Rgds, Bongomatic 05:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the term Wiredawg is a descriptive euphimism to describe the 2E6X2 and 2E6X3 job categories. As such I deemed the articles I added to the text entirely appropriate as they are in depth discussions of these jobs. I don't think there is an article 2E6X2? I wasn't adding it to support the claim that they are called Wiredawgs, I wasn't aware this was in dispute. They have their own website with that name. I was adding the references to establish the job categories and descriptions of what they do. I will have another look at my reference placement.

Are you disputing that Wiredawg is a term applied to these job categories? I'm a little confused. In fact, it's kind of over my head, so I posted on the Military History project discussion page so the experts could have a look. Let me know if I'm still missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a point about what footnotes mean. When you footnote a sentence, the reference is implied to support the claim made in the sentence. If the intention is simply to have adequate descriptions of the jobs, the "External links" section seems to me a more appropriate place.

The way you have chosen to provide the web link--as a reference after a sentence making an unsupported claim--is likley to lead a cursory reader to believe that there exists documentation in popular sources associating the "dawg" moniker or monikers with the jobs, while in fact there is vanishingly little if any support that the moniker is in anything approaching widespread use. Do you see my point? Bongomatic 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully I couldn't find a great place for that reference in the article's body, so I fit it in as best I could. I wasn't putting it to there to support the Dawg bit, but as a reference describing the cable division of category, which is the subject of the article referenced and I thought that was where it was first introduced in the Wikipedia article's body.

I have now moved it to the appropriate (I think) sentence in the lead. I wasn't aware that there was a dispute over whether the term "Wiredawg" is used to describe these categories, I thought that was self-evident. My understanding was that the proposed deletion is based on a question of notability (with some concerns over article quality and unencyclopedic writing mixed in). Also, as it's late, I haven't thoroughly read those articles, just perused them to see that they provide basic coverage of the two job categories encompassed in the term Wiredawg as I understand it. I think they are an excellent basis for an article on the subject of the job categories regardless, whether it's appropriate to refer to them as Wiredawgs or called something else. I haven't seen the article's title expressed as a concern, so you've caught me a little of guard. But I agree with you that the reference wasn't well placed and I hope I've taken care of that problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As the article is written, it purports to describe a putatively notable and widespread moniker for members of a profession. In that sense, the topic strikes me as wholly nonnotable—hence the nomination, and it is in that context that I made the above comment about not unintentionally lending credence to the notion that the term was in widespread use (which would in turn be a specious argument for notability).

To the extent that it could be morphed into an article about the two underlying professions, it seems nonnotable for different reasons—specifically, that Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of military (or any other) job classifications. Bongomatic 06:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you explain the wiredawg.net website? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs explaining. Are you suggesting that if a bunch of people in related professions put together a website that anything they call themselves is widespread, verifiable, and notable? Quite the opposite, WP:N requires that information be from sources that are independent of the subject. Bongomatic 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose nothing needs explaining, I just don't understand or agree with the logic supporting a deletion of that article. In fact there is a plumber article a janitor article and I'm sure there are articles on truck drivers, recon marines, infantry etc. So ummm... yeah I don't get it. And if it needs to be retitled that wouldn't be a problem, but I'm not sure 2x6x3 or whatever they're called is superior. But I don't have any hard feelings on the matter. I just can't figure out why that subject wouldn't be appropriate for an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of different interpretations of what "significant coverage" means. My view is that it requires that the coverage be in sources that are not intended to be exhaustive lists of things (i.e., directories of any sort).

In fact, the janitorial and plumbing professions are covered widely and frequently in numerous sources other than directories. And possibly so are cable splicers, etc. But there is no evidence that military cable splicers in particular are significantly covered on their own in reliable sources other than directories.

Logically, if everything that is reliably covered in detail merits its own article, then Wikipedia becomes the union of every directory ever published, which clearly is not the thrust of WP:NOTDIR.

Others disagree (see WP:Articles for deletion/FCS Control Systems) but they are terribly wrong and misguided (despite acting always in good faith). ;) Bongomatic 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Your mileage may vary. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

I'm a big fan of Willy's explanations: "Notability established the usual way. No need to make an exception." Always makes me smile. An Australian military editor weighed in with a delete, so what do I know. But an article on Wiredawgs seems a heck of a lot cooler than an article on Voice Network Systems technicians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you vote your conscience based on "coolness", you certainly wouldn't be the first. Bongomatic 07:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And one article and two redirects is way cooler than two articles. See my latest comment at the AfD.  ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hot Dawg

Thanks for taking the time to commit your thoughts to keyboard. I can understand the position you are coming from, but the problem with the Wiredawg article (at least from where I sit) is twofold.

According to Wikipedia's content policies, an article needs to consist of verifiable information relating to the subject ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - Wikipedia:Verifiability). This information needs to be drawn from sources of information independant of the subject and with a known methodology for fact-checking and accuracy (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), and cannot contain "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" (Wikipedia:No original research). Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any reliable, third-party, published sources about Wiredawgs, as I stated in the deletion discussion. The other problem is that there are even fewer reliable sources about "Voice Network Systems technicians" and/or "Cable and Antenna Systems technicians".

I have no doubts that these professsions exist within the United States Air Force, that some or most of the people performing these professions identify themselves by these nicknames, and that they do a vital job for their unit, their military, and their nation. Sites like the About.com job description and Wiredawg.net demonstrate this. However, there is not enough information meeting Wikipedia inclusion policies to support an article, either on Wiredawgs, or on Voice Network Systems technicians. -- saberwyn 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Cass Lewart

---

I was introduced to Cass at a Yom Ha Shoah service were he was the main speecker. Feel free to email him. His email address is displayed on his home page. User:Smfield —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

Moving article

hi there. If you go to the article and then click on "move" (top of the page, between "edit this page" and "watch") enter the new title, and the reason (e.g. in line with the naming of other articles). Done. You can set up the redirect. If you have a look at [4] that tells you which articles currently link to "History of slavery in Iran", if you have the time you can change them all manually (I help you if you want), or just let them redirect. Hope this helps, let me know if you need any help.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chants about Manchester United

I edited the formatting to comply with wikipedia standards. Every wikipedia article with outside sources is formatted in that way. User:TheRatedRKOLegendKiller (UTC 19:45)

88888 Lights Out

I asked DGG, but wanted to get your opinion on an AFD as well. I added some extra mild sources and fixed this article somewhat, but the AFD looks like a dogpile, much more so that I would expect for this article. I think it slides by simply because of the sources. All are Indian sources, almost all in English, so I don't know if that is the problem (shouldn't be). DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates of how long the organization has been in existence would help. I'm thinking not long, which contributes to my conclusion that it should be deleted. But if it's existed a while (like 2 years at least) and had notable impact and membership (that can be established by references in the article) it might have a chance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My basis for notability was simply the amount of press it had received. It is a one shot event, so it can't actually "exist" for 2 years. They are already working on a 99999 Lights Out. I added more refs. If you can't support, that is certainly fine and I still appreciate the opinion. You can't always be right, that's my job. ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me also add: it was an event that several papers wrote about in India. Because it received some press, I can see someone saying "what is this 88888 Lights Out thing?" and then looking it up on Wikipedia. That isn't a criteria here, but that usually tells me I'm on to something. It is at least encyclopedic in the general sense, and the sources say "notable" since they are plentiful. But again, if you don't agree, no offense taken in the least. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would merge any pertinent information and redirect to the appropriate article. I'm pretty confident one time events are a no-no, unless it's something epic and historic. I think the information is great to include in the encyclopedia, I just don't think it needs its own article. Can you find an article on the environmental movement in India? Or environmental programs or ummm somewhere to put it? Are you going to be working on the 9999 event article next year? I thought you were busy cataloging all the magistrates over the last 50 years... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No no no, I was trying to get YOU to merge them into the proper STATE articles. And no, I'm not a tree hugger. This is a "save" on principal only. I try to save at least one article I disagree with politically per month. Keeps me honest. I am not kidding. As far as "one time events", Hands Across America was too, so I would disagree with a generalized rule regarding one time events. Most "events" are one time. If you know a specific policy on that, please tell me, but I thought it still boils down to sources verifying. Yes, this would probably be a merge candidate but it is at AFD which isn't a merge forum, particularly when half are saying "speedy delete" and the other half are cut and pasting each other's delete comments. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you're right of course that some one time events a notable and can be included. The question is does this one pass that test? It seems to me that events like "walk to work day" and "turn out your lights day" are significant in a broader context of social activism. But no one event is important enough to be included in the encyclopedia (generally speaking anyway). I think about it this way, would someone search for that term? And if they did would they be better served by getting the same information in an article that included the appropriate context? I answer in the affirmative. I think it would be good information to include in an article on Indian environmental activism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. We all learn. DGG piped in strongly against it as well. I can always count on him to be not hold back, which is a good thing. I wasn't expecting much out of this, I knew it was a very very borderline case. (and I have seen worse get kept...) Like I told him, the only way to get a bead on what the consensus is, is to challenge it. I figured it might have been a lost cause, but I would rather spend time saving something than deleting something. A year ago, that wasn't as big of a deal. Anyway, you did all I could ask, give an honest opinion, and for that I thank you! DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can be so bold as to offer one last comment, do not confuse deleting an article with deleting the information. A merge and redirect to a better article can focus a reader on a better source of information. It also serves to focus editorial efforts in a more useful way. One great article on Indian environmentalism, including the good information from this article, is far better than 10 or 20 scatter-shot articles on individual events. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you know an article to merge with, I am all ears about trying to accomplish some of this. I couldn't find one, however. It may be that this is the first article on environmentalism in India. Considering it is the 2nd most populous nation in the world and quickly developing, this would be a real loss. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

Dennis Brown has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Wow I am genuinely impressed. Not just by the excellent WP:HEY job you did to 88888 Lights Out but by the sheer volume of good will in doing so. Hopefully this will kickstart articles on Indian Environmentalism. I don't know if even Shiva can save it at AFD, but it damn sure won't be your fault.

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It would mean more to me if I could eat it. But I appeciate it just the same. The good news is I'm going out for Chili-burgers tonight at Tommy's (actually not that Tommy's but a similar place with a similar name that's some sort of off-shoot). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

""test" reference in the nom is a bit troubling"

Don't be troubled :) Just practicing a little WP:BOLD! If you can weight in or help on the proposed guideline, I'd appreciate it. --Kickstart70TC 04:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold Spring Tavern

I just saw that you are actually the one to bring Cold Spring Tavern up to speed, via being the food and drink expert, and a socal expert. Seriously, I would work it up on your sandbox, get it up to speed, and submit it for WP:DYK (has to be within 5 days of radically improving it). This is a perfect candidate if you source the lion and bear meat. This assumes you drastically enlarged it, which I think can be done. Anyway, I have been busy doing photographs today, including a panoramic of the lake (need to redo though). Will leave the tavern in your hands. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Brown (talk • contribs)

AFD to do with Dodgeball on my talk page

thanks a lot for the work you did there, I've changed my vote but otherwise I don't have time right now to improve it. But thanks again! :) Mathmo ^Talk 01:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Skulduggery Pleasant (character)

Thank you for your comments on the AfD. However when was Skullduggery pleasant made into two video games? I can't find a reference. Also on AfD for Kitty Jones you suggested merging to characters of Terabithia Not Bartimaeus Trilogy I've moved all the merger tags but am I allowed to change the one on the AfD itself? Once again thank you for your comments on saving these articles from deletion. :) --Beligaronia (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really have a problem with it it would be nice if there were to add to notability. But I thought it best to clarify from another person voting "Keep" than being used against us in tghe debate. thanks for all the great work.--Beligaronia (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: AfD nomination of 107.1 KGSR Radio Austin - Broadcasts Vol.10

Thank you very much for your kind words! They are much appreciated. Whataworld06 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your great input...

...on that surfer band AfD and throughout Wikipedia. I enjoy your contributions. Keep up the fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

At least I didn't get that hippie shit you put on Dennis's page. Only kidding. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Harsh. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, now...behave yourselves! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Restaurant notability

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coney I-Lander your questions, I honestly do not believe the far majority of restaurant pages on Wikipedia *really* would pass WP:CORP if it wasn't restaurants we were talking about. For some reason, people love to keep restaurant listings here, disregarding the most basic of corporate or organizational notability rules. Adding to that, a good many editors consider a published restaurant review - even a few short sentences on page F16 of a newspaper - absolute proof of notability. Since I don't think this way, and absolutely follow the Be Bold principles, a (very) few get put up for Afd. Most just get a notability notice.

Regarding your comment in the above linked Afd..."Regional chain dating back to 1926? They serve a specialized product. Seems notable to me."...if we were talking about a few hardware stores with handmade shovels or something, would they be notable enough for inclusion here? I kinda think not. Appreciate your feedback on this. I am always willing to be proven wrong. --Kickstart70TC 03:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts. I think restaurants and food are important cultural and social institutions to a lot of people. I've had some memorable meals, but not many memorable trips to the hardware store... I appreciate your explanation and I think focusing on article quality can be a good thing as editors come forward to add references and shape up the articles. I've noticed a preference for large chains as opposed to historic stand-alones, which I don't think is totally fair. Whatver the guidelines, consensus will always come down to people's judgements. I would tend to favor an artisan toolmaker (or other specialized business), although a hardware store would have to be rather historic or notable in some special respect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, you and I don't think too much different on this. If you knew me in "real life", that would be obvious :) What I really would suggest is that you take a look at WP:CORP (specifically, the first section that talks about "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and "(t)rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Then, if you don't believe that WP:CORP has enough leeway to keep what you believe to be notable restaurants on Wikipedia, then one of two things is going to have to happen: either WP:CORP needs to be changed or WP:REST achieves a consensus and eases up the WP:CORP restrictions. Either way, I'll support inclusion of your thoughts on this...I just can't in good conscience support ignoring rules achieved by a consensus of many editors. --Kickstart70TC 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example where I don't think notability has been established: Boulder Dam Brewing Company. It's a new place, there's no suggestion of unique or specialized food, and the only notability it seems to have achieved is as a place with a "cool" beer garden and mediocre food. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You've proven my point exactly as, other than you, there are currently two Keep and two Delete. People simply are not applying WP:CORP to restaurants consistently. I don't know if it's just because these editors don't know what guidelines they should follow or they know but don't care for consensus. --Kickstart70TC 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, that nomination has not played out yet, so let's see what happens. The Albert's family restaurant nom is looking like a deletion, and a case could be made for keeping it. So perhaps we're doing better on the upkeep of standards than you give us credit for? That being said, I'm watching a non-restaurant nom headed for "keep" despite it being just about the most awful article I've read. Perfection is a goal, not a destination. Or something like that, right?ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposing turning list of DS games w/ rumble into category.

I'm making this proposal here. Feel free to discuss. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[User:Dennis Brown/Missing person]]

When you get a chance, peek in at talk and such. I've had to pull back the criteria to reflect current consensus, and RHMED made some good points as well. It is less "deletionist" as you would say. I don't consider myself either, to be honest. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quincy Method

Greetings ChildofMidnight. Was it really necessary to slap that template on the Quincy Method article just a few minutes after I'd created it? The two inline citations (from The New York Times and Encyclopaedia Britannica) were surely enough for such a short article. Lucky I'm thick-skinned and don't take such things personally, but newcomers to Wikipedia might feel put off from contributing to this great project. Of course other editors are welcome to improve the article as it stands. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that the tag was an attack. My understanding is that it identifies problem areas that need to be fixed. Don't you think that section needs referencing? Isn't that useful to mark? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for rapid response. I don't consider it an attack, just a waste of everyone's valuable time. I have no objection to the use of that template per se - and in fact have used it myself on several occasions for cases requiring major work. But maybe you'd like to point out what you consider "problem areas" in that particular article. --Technopat (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything after the first two sentences is unreferenced. So I tagged that portion of the article as needing to be sourced and referenced so it can be verified. Nothing personal. I think the tags are rather ugly, but I'm not in charge of designing them. There are also ways to communicate that you are working on the article, such as an under-contruction tag, if you don't want other editors tagging or interfering. I was just trying to be helpful, but I'm sorry if you thought it was an attack or disagree with my conclusion that the article needs better citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I often use the more subtle template to highlight something I reckon needs fixing in an otherwise well-laid out article, and save "your" tag for far more serious stuff - and there's plenty of articles out there that need tagging. BTW, I'd be delighted if other editors helped out on the article - the essence of Wikipedia - and constructive editing can hardly be considered interfering --Technopat (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I was happy to leave things as they were rather than enter into a sort of (highly unnecessary and petty) edit war, but as you have just left a message on my talkpage in which you accuse me a) of being uncivil ("... it's a bit uncivil to criticize an editor who has taken the time to read your article and added the appropriate tags to areas they deem need improvement."), and b) of adding a cited source that doesn’t correspond to the content ("... the content in that article does not, in my opinion, reflect the content in the cited source."), the implications of which I’m still not sure. But I suddenly find I have time to devote to this issue.

A large number of new articles appear everyday of varying degrees of notability and compliance with Wikipedia MoS, and regardless of whether it’s "my" article, personally I consider it uncivil - to use your own expression - to slap that particular template on an article that is perfectly well sourced, laid out, etc. when there are other, more “appropriate” tags to add to a specific point you consider needs clearing up.

Re. the citation not corresponding to the content, either the link is bad – which it isn’t, or you haven’t read it fully. But as you say, there’s no reason for you to do so if you’re not interested in being constructive. But please don’t throw out empty "accusations"...

As for your recommendation to use the "underconstruction" template, I usually do, but on this particular occasion didn’t, as I considered the article was sufficiently "neat & tidy": it had two inline citations (it’s, like, a short article) and the rest of the content is readily available at those two referenced sources and the wikilinks, i.e. there is no original research. All articles on Wikipedia could do with more copy-editing and more inline citations - that’s where the collaborative effort comes in...

We could go round in circles like this - repeating ourselves - till the cows come home, but personally I prefer to devote my time to doing more constructive things at Wikipedia. --Technopat (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is in my opinion inaccurate and does not reflect the sources that you've included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate what specific inaccuracy/inaccuracies you find in the article so that I - or any other editor - can do something about it. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's talk page is there for a reason.--Technopat (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article states that the Quincy model encourages learning by doing ie. writing words over and over and over again. So I don't think it's accurate to say he opposed rote learning. He opposed oral spelling (for the first two years of study, according to the article) and opposed the use of spelling books, but he was a strong supporter of learning by copying and mechanical repetition with accuracy (which is an example of rote learning as I understand the term).

My broader point would simply be that I had questions about some of the content in the article, so I tagged it so I could investigate the sources. You may have thought I was wrong and that it was properly sourced, and you can certainly remove the tags, but understand that I put them there for good reason and that they aren't an attack on you, they're an expression of another editor's (mine in this case) opinion that the content needs improvement in some way. Respectfully, ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The mention of his objection to rote learning is taken from the article on Parker (in the context of his opposition to the traditional methods of education). I did not cite it. MY inline citation refers to the statement that spelling books should be burned: both the lead and the body of the NYT article refers to it: "The spelling book appeared to be an object of the fervent wrath of the Professor. During his remarks he referred to the subject several times, and finally, in reply to a teacher who was anxious to know how he should get rid of it, he said emphatically he would burn it." The very next statement: "He admitted that he was in favor of oral spelling as a help... His idea appears to be to introduce oral spelling at about the third year of instruction." So, if it is the mention of "rote learning" that you find offensive, go ahead and remove it. Your POV: "...rote learning as I understand the term)."

As for your "broader point" being that you had some questions ... "so I tagged it so I could investigate the sources." Surely you could have "investigated the sources" – the inline citations I had included – without slapping the template on. Here we go again...

I had no intention of removing the template you left – my original communication to you asked whether it was really necessary. Another editor has since removed the template.

I’m outta here – and look forward to contributions from other editors who know more than I/me about the subject. As I mentioned on the talk page at the Parker article, I went there to find out more about the Plan/Method – call it what you will – not to get involved in a pointless exchange.--Technopat (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say whether this is a pointless discussion as you state. If you aren't concerned with the accuracy of the article you created and aren't concerned with my reasons for tagging it, I wonder why you started this discussion on my talk page? I can say, with confidence, the article I tagged is improperly cited and doesn't reflect the content of the articles that are cited. It also has POV issues. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify the POV issues, the "improper" citations, and any other issues on the article talk page so other editors can also see what can be done o improve the article. --Technopat (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, you have not "done" so at all. As tends to be recurrent on this talk page, I get the impression you just wanted to have the last word in your dealings with any editor who questions your edits. Please reflect on this and make constructive comments rather than trying to win needless arguments. --Technopat (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your reply. Does the word "irony" mean something to you? Despite your long explanations, my citation needed tag was appropriate, the content wasn't accurate, and when you added a citation after the fact, the content in the citation contradicted what you wrote. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of what you claim is correct. As you still insist the article is misleading, to say the least, it looks as if the only resort left to a responsible editor at Wikipedia is to do something about it. Please help make the article into something worthy of Wikipedia... or why not just AfD it. That way we'd get other editors involved and interested.--Technopat (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dodgeball

Just a quick note before I take off for the evening: I removed the rescue tag since it wasn't at AFD anymore. I have tried a fair amount in regards to finding sources that pass wp:rs for the different varieties, but this is no easy task. It may have to be trimmed down to avoid AFD in the future if we can't find them. some changes on the misper page as well. Have a good evening, I'm off to drink cocoa with the mrs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Veretski Pass

I see you added a Notability template to the article Veretski Pass that I recently wrote. I hoped I'd included sufficient references for such a short article, and I'm not sure how to further show notability (You say it needs references specifically to newspaper and magazine articles, but the general notability guideline doesn't appear to specifically require that). Anyway, I've started a discussion on the Talk page. I'd be grateful if you could expand on your thoughts and perhaps offer me some suggestions on how to proceed (either on the Talk page or here). Thanks in advance. Oscroft (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(PS: I've just seen your stuff further up the page on formatting references. Brilliant, it answers a question I was pondering recently - how to use the same reference twice. I'll tidy up my reference formatting based on it. Oscroft (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC) )

Hi. Many thanks for your replies (on the article's talk page and on my own) - I've replied on the article talk page (and apologies for repeating stuff in different places - I know I tend to waffle too much) Oscroft (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Lies I Sire

I've removed the speedy you placed on For Lies I Sire because this article is not blatant spam. However, I do believe that this article is crystal-balling, so I've nominated it for deletion. If you would like to participate in the deletion discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Lies I Sire. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Olympians

For the record, I am not one. :) But I would think that yes, that would meet WP:ATHLETE. I can't think of a higher level of amateur sports.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that WP:ATHLETE lets in a lot of people who wouldn't make it under general WP:N criteria, that seems to be how the specific guideline works. It also holds true for a lot of minor-league professionals. The general feel is that if the player can live off what they earn, it is "fully-professional." As for the "highest level of amateur sports," then I don't know how to decide who makes the cut and who doesn't. Medal-winning? Final heats? And it wouldn't distinguish between varied sports either. An Olympic sport such as gymnastics or basketball is going to have athletes who don't win medals who are more notable than those that do in smaller sports such as shooting or curling. you see where the discussion on levels beneath the Olympics can go. I feel that there needs to be some bright-line rules here because of the mass of athletes involved. In football, until this discussion, it has been interpreted to require play at the professional level without independent notability.

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Apis O-tang's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD: Sub-Aqua Association

Thanks for your comments on WP:Articles for deletion/Sub-Aqua Association. I think you have put me on the right lines to be able to include the cite I mentioned - it's really about regulation of membership - and hopefully it now makes a positive addition to the article. I was reluctant to use it just as an excuse to show notability as I was worried about it being irrelevant and insensitive. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it if you took a look and let me know if you can see anything amiss (apart from the fact it now needs a good copyedit!). Thanks again for spurring me on to do a job I'd been putting off for some time. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Your high-quality edits to Sub-Aqua Association were much appreciated RexxS (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your cleanup and copyedit and there's no way I would want to alter a single change you made. You know you have a real talent for copyediting and anytime you have an hour to spare there's an article User:Gene Hobbs and I recently took to GA - Oxygen toxicity, that needs a fresh look at and copyedit before going for FA. At present, I write stuff and Gene references them - it would be great to have someone with copyedit skills who would be willing to collaborate whenever they had a little time :). Anyway, I hope we run into each other again somewhere in the encyclopedia! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Asianic religions

This article is in a style similar to that of Hittite religion -- a list of Anatolian deities and their main features (meaning of names). It does, however, add some cognate terms (names of deities, etc.) from related (Indo-European) religions, to provide some familiar reference-points. Also, it brings the area-study down to a later date, by showing how the transition into Christianity was made by transforming pre-Christian deities into characteristics of Christian ones; which may be helpful to indicate relevance of ancient Anatolian religion the present-day religious world. Altogether too many historical studies are written of obsolete beliefs and trends without any attempt to connect them with surviving ones.0XQ (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend reviewing some of the main religion articles like Islam, Hinduism or Jainism. The introduction needs to explain what the religion(s) are, who practices them, and their basic tennets. The rest of the article should be sectioned and explain these same aspects in greater detail. I think some examples of terminology, deities, etc. would be fine to include, but it needs to be done in the context of encyclopedic language and explanations. I don't see a discussion or explanation of what these religions are and reading the article I couldn't figure out who practiced these religions, how widespread they were or what the beliefs consisted of. I'm not trying to say that there isn't good information there, but it's not being presented in a way that communicates it clearly (at least not to the lay reader) and effectively along encyclopedic guidelines. Let me know if I can be of any help. I'm merely trying to offer suggestions in good faith, and I hope they will be taken as such. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[author]Thank you for this useful advice. I have added an introduction to the article. Please see if it now looks suitable to you; and if so, please so change your recommendation back to "keep" on the "deletion discussion".0XQ (talk)

FightBack

Hello,

I have added several sources to the Fightback article, which I believe are sufficient to establish its notability and verifiability. I would request that you review the article and reconsider your support for its deletion.

Thank you,

Sickle and Hammer (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

I see your a wikistalker, too. Join the club of those who wikistalk me. User: Binksternet and user:Pagrashtak (not so much anymore). Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

? I'm certainly not stalking you. I have added a couple tags to a couple of articles you made. The tags suggest that the articles you created would benefit from sourcing and content cited to reliable media sources. You've made some good contributions and I hope you'll take these suggestions into consideration. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look.

Take a peek at Talk:List_of_alleged_UFO-related_entities which is related to an afd you were involved in. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comment

Courtesy note that I responded to your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Nick_Savoy. Camera123456 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And responded on my talk page. I appreciate your input, thanks!Camera123456 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

James A. McKinstry

Your own argument that the article was unreferenced no longer applied. And the two anons (plus the nominator) who argued delete only provided IDONTLIKEIT arguments. The only person left to argue delete was open to convincing and wasn't convinced this was a flat-out delete. Based on the TIME reference I was convinced that relisting the page would be an unwise decision as long as there hadn't been enough time for improvement. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your page. The article doesn't have any references except for a photo and a list. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The decision to keep is by no means permanent. If the "good questions that were never answered" you mentioned are answered, I have no problem with a renomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The decision to keep was based on a fake citation and a flawed reading of the arguments and votes cast. It should at least be changed to no consensus.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the citation you removed did mention McKinstry in passing. (It was about his son.)

I'm not so concerned about the Keep result. I think being on the roster is good enough. I just wish the discussion could've been stretched out a bit longer, in the chance that someone might've popped in with more information about the guy. Zagalejo^^^ 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we have a better citation for his son than we do for any of the information on the father. A "no consensus" close would have been more appropriate, but I didn't see any arguments or evidence to support a keep as there is no verifiable evidence of notability per the guidelines. Making the roster? That's a stretch to carry that over into notability. The article is also very promotional and includes no good references for any of the information it contains (even the non-sports related stuff). I agree with you that more information would be welcome, and I think my questions during the AfD reflected that. I just didn't understand how someone reading the votes and discussion could conclude that there was a consensus to keep the article or that the arguments for keeping the article were strong. I have no problem with that citation being put back, but it should probably be clarified that it's an article about his son. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Home of Angels

Its a little better now, having found several reliable sources and expanded the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cybex International

By calling this article unreferenced, you are saying that the information in the history in the about us and history sections of a company's website is all lies. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see wp: references by seraching "wp: references" in the search box or the links provided in the references needed tag. I haven't said anything is "all lies", I've suggested that references to reliable media accounts (from newspapers, books, magazines, reliable websites etc.) is needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference tag from Cybex International. Check it out. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you found a couple of good references for this article (I haven't looked into them in depth). The link titles seem a little unusual, you might consider modifying them. This type of coverage to sources outside an article subject itself is needed for articles on Wikipedia, so I hope you'll continue to include them in your future contributions and add them to articles that need them. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed Hauser

Thank you for your help today with the Ed Hauser page.
Rick Pollack (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Spätzle

I don't think this recipe is standard. Is there evidence wheat flour is a common ingredient in Spatzle?

Yes of course it is evidence. All the references in the article mention wheat flour, as a standard recipe (even the German ones, if you can speak German you could read them - Mehl) And it is common knwlege too. Why do you think that spätzle is made with potato flour?

Maybe you think about gnocci, a similar dish.

Warrington (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the German Wikipedia

Zutaten ingredients [Bearbeiten]

Der Spätzleteig wird aus Mehl, Eiern, lauwarmem Wasser, mancherorts auch mit Milch, und Salz zubereitet, wobei die Mengenangaben variieren können. Als Faustregeln gelten: Für eine Portion je 100 g Mehl, eine Prise Salz, ein Ei und: immer ein Ei mehr als Leute, die später bei Tisch sitzen. Im Handel angebotenes Spätzlemehl ist meist grobkörnigeres (doppelgriffiges) Weizenmehl Type 405, teilweise mit Dinkelmehl oder feinem Grieß gemischt. Es klumpt weniger als glattes Mehl.

they mentiom flour and flour made of Dinkel

Warrington (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The term wheat flour is associated here with whole-wheat flour. Thus there is white-bread and wheat bread. Both are made from wheat. Can you clarify that it is white wheat flour or bleached wheat flour? And finally, I think you could probably make a fine spatzle from other kinds of flour, but whatever kind of flour you use I would think it needs to be a white flour for the traditional version of spatzle. A wheat flour that wasn't bleached would make it more hearty than normal. Right?ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, than I made a mistake. Spätzle is not made with whole-wheat flour. it is white wheat flour, just regular white flour. But it is certainly not potato flour (somebody made an edit on that and you reverted it to that one (with the potato flour.) Or did you ment that spätzle was made of potato flour instead of white wheat flour?

Warrington (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Ooops. No, I wasn't trying to make gnocci (I'm not a fan of it). I was just trying to clarify that spatzle uses "regular" flour (white flour) and seeing the "wheat" flour threw me a bit for the reasons I stated. Saying it's wheat flour is okay with me and accurate (flour is almost assumed to be wheat flour here in the states of course). My only suggestion would be to make it clear what type of wheat flour ie. white or bleached or whatever the correct terminology is so yanks like myself aren't thrown off. Sorry about causing the confusion. My mistake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was also just trying to clarify that spätzle uses "regular" flour (white flour). So we were basically doing the same thing. What do you think, what is the best way of stating this in the article?

PS If you want, than please make that change.

Warrington (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just returned it to "flour". It's generic and it doesn't exclude anything. I'm okay with "white wheat flour" or "bleached wheat flour" too, but I'm not sure it's necessary. If someone wants to introduce potato flour or a discussion of what kind of flour, I think that can be done elswehere (with citations), but it seems unnecessary to me. I presume most people would use white (bleached) wheat flour and I think that is the traditional method. But I suppose you could make it with other kinds of flour and you'd have new varieties of spatzle (just as people make various types of pancake with different flours). Sorry about not looking more closely at what I was reverting to and wasting your time, I was just trying to get it back to flour. Thank you for your patience and kind consideration. Auf wiedershen meine freunde. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was a real pleasure to have a civilized discussion whith someone on Wikipedia. And thanks for your help. Auf Wiedersehen mein Freund! Warrington (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

re Presidio mutiny

I've discovered that the guy's name was Richard, not Michael, which means that Michael Bunch needs to be deleited, not redirected. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

subpages/saving on computer

I know about all that and do it, but often pages are protected after being deleted, so they cannot be remade. I am really mad about the deletion of my article home audio. How the hell can such a huge and broad thing not have an article? See User:Daniel Christensen/Home audio Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

What's the difference between rewriting and recreating pages, and how do you do it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and attacks

In regards to to your recent comments to ScienceApologist. Please carefully read NPA and WP:Civility.
Your

You have self-righteousness down pat, but the idea that you're helping or doing a service by promoting censorship and using aggresive tactics to get your way seems pretty far fetched. Take care.

was a blatant attack. Any more of that and you may be blocked. Vsmith (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. With all due respect, ScienceApologist stated clearly that he supports the censorship of fringe ideas: "Do you think censoring these conspiracy theories and fringe views makes them go away? From Wikipedia? Yes." And I don't think saying someone has been aggresive can be considered a personal attack. You don't think his approach is aggresive? So I'm a little surprised by your stern warning. In fact I think I was quite respectful and civil in my discussion of the issues involved in editing articles on Wikipedia which as I understand it is the purpose of talk pages. And if his comments, many of them inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines and values, aren't self-righteous I wonder what they are. But I won't converse further with him if it disturbs you and will interfere in my ability to contribute and make the encyclopedia better.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for disengaging. Always focus on content rather than others' behavior to avoid misunderstandings and escalations. Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice and I thank you for it. Take care.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record: "It is unfortunate that amateurs and charlatans are allowed as much clout as they are allowed on Wikipedia. I am an elitist because Wikipedia says that the best sources are the elite ones. Most people who are not elitist neither have access nor familiarity with the best sources," strikes me as being self-righteous, to use a generous term.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional Newcomer Award

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		It is a rare thing for me to come across someone that I have never seen before five times in the same day. This prompted me to read over your contributions and get a feel for what you have been up to. In the time I have been on Wikipedia, I have only seen a scant handful of individuals that have become as prolific and involved as you have in such a short period of time. Keep up the good work, I'm looking forward to seeing exceptional things from you. Trusilver 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

BNIX

Hi, per WP:PROD, proposed deletion notices may not be replaced if someone has removed them contesting proposed deletion. If you still feel this article should be deleted, WP:AfD is the correct venue. — BillC ^talk 12:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. Okay. As long as the person contesting the prod is not the article's creator, is that correct? Thank you. I was confusing it with other tags some of which aren't supposed to be removed unless they are addressed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, anyone, including the creator of an article, may remove a PROD tag. See: Wikipedia:PROD#Conflicts:

"Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article)."

The Anome (talk · contribs · count) removed the tag (and provided a rationale in his edit summary "it's a national IXP") — BillC ^talk 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Thanks very much for taking the time to explain. I'm still learning the ins and outs of deletion and notability procedures.

As an aside, I notice obituaries aren't allowed, but they seem to be a common submission. If a person is notable then it can't be deleted, so I guess the article needs to be fixed? Or is there another alternative to deal with this "rule breaking"? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule saying obituaries as such are forbidden. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Most newspaper obituaries, for example, are mini-bios. An article dealing with just an individual's death can be notable, if there was something notable about that death itself. Generally, however, an article would require at least a small biography about that person as well. — BillC ^talk 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I appreciate your taking the time to answer. Memorial service will be held at Shady Gardens Dec. 29th... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote

I just noticed this quote: "sociology is a recreational pursuit of acadmics that shouldn't be encouraged". Was this intended to be tongue-in-cheek, or are you really that anti-academic? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly an element of sarcasm, did it make you laugh? It makes me smile. I think that prudent skepticism is a virtue, particularly given the insular and increasingly political nature of academia. Many academics seem to pursue their beliefs as a sort of religion, which is no less dogmatic or destructive than having other leaders and educators who refuse to countenance disagreement or opposing viewpoints. Pursuits that are purely academic can become so removed from genuine scrutinty and inquiry that logic becomes faulty and wholly circular and any findings irrelevant. I see enormous antagonism and skepticism here about fictional characters and frivolous subjects (that are often notable), so I deemed it helpful to offer a little skepticism of the academic elite you hold so dear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rich that you think I personally hold "academic elite" "dear". I hold sources written by "academic elite" to be the best ones we've got per WP:RS. If you think that the academic elite are not reliable sources, then I suggest you argue that at WT:RS. You can leave the real encyclopedia writing to those who aren't so opposed to WP:MAINSTREAM ideals. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to where the policy says sources written by the academic elite are the best ones? I susupect it would be as difficult as pointing to where I've said sources form the academic elite are not WT:RS. Given the prediliction for invention you seem to be demonstrating, I'm surprised you're so antagonistic to articles on UFOs. Actually, I'm not surprised at all. Censorship and and aggression are tactics often resorted to by people with insecurities and inferiority complexes. I consider twisting people's words to be uncivil, although that may not be a policy at Wikipedia. So I think this ends our discussion. For your information, academia and the mainstream are often at odds. But again you seem more interested in arguing and atagonism than fruitful discussion. I thank you not to post here any more. Ta ta. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange that you would ask questions and then instruct me not to post here any more. I'm going to ignore the end of your comments in deference to the beginning. All of the attributes outlined at WP:RS are qualities that the academic elite have. I'm pretty sure consensus is firmly against you on this point. To clarify, I think that articles on UFOs at Wikipedia should focus on the actual scholarship related to the phenomenon which is, incidentally, that UFOs are cultural crazes that are associated with a number of fads including science fiction, de-mystification of the modern world, and mental illness. Right now, many of the article we have at Wikipedia are written giving undue weight to the claims of the true believers. This is contrary to the way the best, independent, academic elitist sources on the subject treat it. I suggest taking out your anger against academia (are bad grades perhaps the cause?) elsewhere. It's not likely to get you very far here. If you'd like, simply remove all my comments since they seem to cause you so much anguish. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Stranger still that you would invoke my question (I only see one) as reason to post more, and then refuse to answer it except with weasel words about "attributes" and "qualities that the academic elite have". You think this answers the question: "Can you point me to where the policy says sources written by the academic elite are the best ones"? Your scholarship needs work. My question of course was rhetorical, as it was clear you'd be unable to answer it in any kind of satisfactory manner (as you've just demonstrated). I hesitate to characterize your statement, "I think that articles on UFOs at Wikipedia should focus on the actual scholarship related to the phenomenon" given your attempts at deletion and redirection. I don't want to say anything uncivil. And the way to fix undue weight would be to add encyclopedic information, as was explained to you repeatedly by many editors. But again, you seem unwilling to listen to reason, so I again ask you to move on. I'm weary of trifling with your contrived and self-contradictory arguments. Take care.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

sure, we can show that sources written by the academic elite are generally the best, by perfectly objective criteria.. They are the best, when academic topics are concerned, and this can in general be seen by the number of references to them from other sources, and the awards the books have won. Perhaps one might respond that it's all a mutual admiration society--but the evidence that is is not the case is that thee work of these elites leads to measurable progress in those areas where its relevant and testable. That physics and mathematics and chemistry and engineering as conventionally conceived by the elite work, is shown by the existence of the parts of the world they have built. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the other sciences and those social sciences that use similar methods are just as reliable. One can then say that the methods by which such people are trained and can be shown to be effective if used to train people in other fields amenable to systematic study will work also. This is of course irrelevant to the artistic or literary or spiritual or moral progress of mankind. The scientific world view can only be rejected if one is prepared to reject the evidence of the visible world. If some people want to reject the existence of the actual universe, then of course they will reject scientific sources as well, but in that case I don't see why they would want an encyclopedia at all. DGG (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome. The above thread is part of a discussion I had with ScienceApologist. I'm a huge fan of science. In fact I tried to invoke reason as part of the discussion, but as I recall it was rejected.

I'm happy to have a discussion about the merits and demerits of the social sciences, sciences, maintstream media, and amateur hobbyist. May I ask what lead you to comment? I hope I haven't been misunderstood. As you've made an eloquent posting in support of elitism, and for the sake of argument, could you offer a major advance that sociologists or psychologist have made? I will put forth Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as academic drop-outs who have gone on to great things.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please pardon my intrusion, but I couldn't resist responding to DGG's remarks above. It seems to me that DGG has got things backwards:

• Engineering is usually reliable because its failures are immediately evident. When it has disasters (the bridge collapses, the plane doesn't fly) the engineers are forced to admit it and to re-examine their beliefs and practices.
• Those parts of physics and mathematics and chemistry that engineers use are similarly forced to be realistic. Physical science has developed certain rules, such as reproducibility of experiments and mathematical models (in that order of importance) which, if applied properly, keep their beliefs pretty reliable and accurate. Those parts of physical science which have no engineering counterpart (like cosmology) are precisely the questionable parts.
• "Those social sciences that use similar methods" are not subject to that reality check, which immediately allows them to get it wrong with impunity. In fact they do not use the same methods. Controlled reproducible experiments are less frequent, and more difficult to interpret, and there are few reliable underlying models. So to say they are "just as reliable" is emphatially not the case. Of course someone has to study social phenomena, and to do their best, but to claim that they automatically inherit the reliability of their colleagues in physical science is an assumption too far. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I responded, FYI. I really appreciate someone taking an interest in this and if you have any specific and practical suggestions, I'd be very grateful since I have no idea how to "move forward" on this.Camera123456 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out at Human rights/Fetal, reproductive sections. I'll use that talk page to address you if any issues come up. Regards, -Zahd (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

Hi there. I'd like to remind you to only tag articles for deletion under the G1 rationale if they clearly fit the G1 definition of "pure nonsense." Remember that this does not include: "poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes" - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to be more careful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dom Martin

To: Administrators Mgm, JNW, RkLawton, and ChildofMidnight: Apparently notability was not the only issue with my article about Dom Martin. Although administrator Rklawton has never communicated directly with me (Patricia Maier), I now find (in going to the link provided to me by JNW) [5] that Rklawton has assumed that Dom Martin wrote and launched his own article, thus violating Wikipedia policy. This, then, appears to be the underlying cause for the speedy deletion of my article without further recourse to what might be called 'due process' procedures of Wikipedia. I come to this conclusion since in the communications posted on my talk page between administrators Mgm and JNW regarding my article, Mgm indicates “. . . it’s not suitable for speedy deletion”, and JNW wrote back “I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator.”

I can assure you that I, Patricia Maier, the author of the article in question, am certainly not one and the same as the subject, Dom Martin. Not only do I look nothing like the artist, being of a completely different ethnic background, but I am a woman who was born on a different continent, in Washington State, USA, some years before this man was even alive! I can only assume that Rklawton reached this incorrect assumption since I share the same internet service provider with the subject, as do many individuals with computers in the same office or residence facility. If this is going to be the criteria for throwing out articles, based on one individual’s jumping to wrong conclusions, and others then being inspired to support that erroneous opinion, without further verification, then there is no justice to be found on Wikipedia!

In all fairness, I kindly request that my article please be reconsidered and put though the “deletion review process and article for deletion discussion process” which I understand from Mgm can be utilized, and wherein a consensus is required to delete the article.

Conflict of interest is never a reason to delete an article. I deleted the Dom Martin article for lack of verifiable notability. And I've checked: Dom Martin authored the first deleted article. And then, somehow completely out of the blue and two days later, you came along and recreated the very same article. Care to explain your relationship with Dom Marin? Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on my talk page? Anyway, if I can help somehow let me know. This is the Goan artist article you all are discussing? It needs to include references to media sources discussing the artist and his work, otherwise it's not going to last here on wikipedia. All the best! Happy Thanksgiving... gobble gobble gobble! I'm thankful for all of the craziness on WIkipedia. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

titles

Please do not make a practice of refactoring other people's talk pages. I just changed mine back, but some people here would get very angry. DGG (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I only changed it because the term is very offensive. But if you guys are okay with offending people you can keep it that way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gainer

11/28/2008

We at R.L. Crow do not wish to create any conflict with the editors at Wikipedia. We have tried to address the issues mentioned and are at a loss as to want is needed. Several other Wikipedia editors have helped edit the article to bring into conformance. At one point we feel the article was even vandalized. You have our full cooperation in correcting and addressing your concerns. We are new to this and just do not understand what is needed. Any help you can give will be forever appreciated.

Thank you, K. St.Marie, R.L. Crow Publications

Feel free to responnd here or to email at editor395@yahoo.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor395 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Human rights draft moved

The draft page for human rights Human rights/Fetal, reproductive sections has been moved to talk:human rights/temp, per (WP:SUBP#Disallowed uses). Thought I would let you know since you contributed to the page recently. Zodon (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith edits

Please desist with your bad faith edits to glamour (disambiguation), I can only assume are related to your call for deletion in the deletion review[6], where you were the only person to vote against it.

These kinds of edits have no place in the wikipedia, and if you continue to attempt to add them, I will ensure that you are no longer in a position to do so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The title of your post and the contents of your post seem disruptive, show bad faith, and seem to be uncivil. It's not nice to threaten people with whom you disagree. I assure you that I haven't made any bad faith edits and I've only sought to clarify and correct the disambiguation page and the article to which your refer. You also mirepresent the AfD. As I recall the consensus was that the article was severely flawed and needed major work in order to meet Wikipedia standards, but the topic itself was notable. I'm sorry that you haven't followed the recommendations made in that discussion, and I suggest you focus on the content you are unhappy about and engage in a civil and respectful discussion about any content you dispute. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I always assume good faith, but that guideline does not say that I have to continue to do so with continued evidence to the contrary. The article is and was a stub, was and is labelled as such, but the fact that you have misrepresented the topic several times in the deletion review and 3 times on the disambiguation page really is all the evidence I need to abandon good faith, and for me to characterise your edits as deliberate misrepresentation/vandalism.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are continuing to fail to assume good faith. Whereas I only have an extremely limited set of references I have found on the topic, and thus far have been unable to grow the article beyond a stub, you seem to, for no good reason, ascribe only dark motives for having the article, and are rewriting the disambiguation page in ways that are self-evidently detrimental to the project.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I would ask you focus on content. You have changed the disambiguagtion page notation to a definition that is not accurate for the term glamour and is based on a single source. I've tried to correct it in various ways and been reverted each time. Please address the fact that this is not an accurate definition of the term and is based on one commentator's opinion. Thank you.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Wake me if you find a reliable source for your irrelevant opinion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I added it, it was the dictionary. A lot more established than the speech you're relying on as your only cite. Please fix your mess. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All I can see is that you and editing privileges of the wikipedia may not be together for a lot longer if you continue to make bad faith edits that are independent of reliable sources.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've requested that the admins look at this, because frankly, you're rewriting the disambiguation page to disagree with the article, and there are other articles that are already linked from there that cover the use of term glamour where it means beauty. This simply isn't the way to do anything.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD was that the article was a disaster, but that an article could be made about glamour. Glamour and beauty are not the same thing. Providing a misleading and inaccurate definition of the term glamour is worse than providing an accurate definition, but neither is what Wikipedia is about. I'm sorry you can't find any sources to fix the article or support one commentator's opinion, but that just confirms my AfD conclusion that the article should be deleted as the unfixable and worthless mess that it is. Please continue any discussion on the relevant talk pages, I've been very patient with your incivility and attacks, but my patience isn't unlimited. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth R. Plum

Thanks for your extensive work on the entries for Dave Albo and Kenneth R. Plum. I do want to note that I reverted one of your changes. I'd tagged a claim in the entry for Plum as dubious, the claim that he was a cosponsor of the bill in question. As I pointed out in the talk page, the legislative record doesn't list him as a cosponsor, and I can't find any evidence that he ever had anything to do with it. It was only on the 19th that I flagged it as dubious and left that comment; I'm not sure how long that I need to let it sit before simply deleting what appears to be an inaccurate statement (in a living person's biography, at that), but there it remains. --WaldoJ (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the heads up. I hope the editor who keeps posting inflammatory POV can get a handle on policy, and I appreciate your efforts to keep thsoe articles encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, ChildofMidnight. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#User:ChildofMidnight_repeatedly_editing_Glamour_.28disambiguation.29. Thank you.Toddst1 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut Foot Sioux Trail

Re Cut Foot Sioux Trail, I think it reads better from your edits, although still and perhaps forever a stub. Is there better word than "made" to describe the roads previously used for logging that the trail runs along. Built? Constructed? I don't like either. They imply "up" and creating a logging road is more about "down". Aymatth2 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's a good article, and I thank you for contributing it. In part it reads a bit like a tour guide, so another editor may take issue with that, but it seems kind of useful to me (although it could probably be rewritten a bit) so I'm leaving it. :) I rewrote the sentence about the forestry roads, see what you think.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your change is an improvement - simpler. Now you mention it, the article is a bit like a tour guide, but I think that is the kind of information people would want. There is no charge for using the trail, so I suppose it is o.k. I will leave it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

travel company article

Thanks for the format - all cites converted. :)

Don't worry, I worked the double thing out. The mess was my fault anyway, on every level, so I should have been the one to clean it up. Do you think the article needs any more (neccessary) work other than the citations needed? Fuzzibloke (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving my discussion page

{{helpme}} Can someone set up an archive for my discussion page so I can stash some of this old stuff? Gracias.

ClueBot III <-- click there. All the info you need. // roux   editor review 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. My background in creative writing isn't helping. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your ArbCom Vote

Thanks for your interest in this year's ArbCom elections. Unfortunately, we were required to set a criteria for voters, and that was decided to be the following:

• Voters must have a registered account that was created on or before November 1, 2008.
• Voters must have made 150 edits to articles on that account on or before November 1, 2008.

According to an automatic check, which I confirmed by looking at your contribution history, you have not met the requirements. Either you have not made 150 edits to articles (these edits must be in the main namespace) or you did not make them before the deadline of 23:59:59 November 1, 2008 (UTC). I've indented your votes. If you believe I sent this message in error, and that you do meet the requirements, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry, I didn't see the Nov. 1 rule. Do I need to delete them or you're going to do that?ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Help is Needed

I love how you watch out for the proper definition of glamour. Well I have one for you that needs your help concerning a photojournalist turned "glamour" photographer who has written three successful books on the topic. Here's the link in deletion review [7] . The original article in question was "speedy deleted" after being listed here on Wikipedia for over two years and having endured an AfD before. The admin responsible for the SD, did so after deleting links from the original article then used his "speedy delete" powers to delete it. When questioned about it, the article went before a 2nd AfD, at which time the admin in question allowed the article to be judged, sans his link deletion of credible sources from the original state of the article. When the sources were added during the 2nd AfD, the admin would delete them immediately and eventually block them, including a link to the Univesity of Texas, San Antonio's list of notable alumni [8] on Wikipedia (Wikipedia approved pages should be a credible source) where the notability of the person (article in question) was clearly established by the university. You appear very knowledgeable in these matters and do not appear to be the type described in this article, [9] and because of this, we request your help in overturning an improper deletion. Thank you for your time. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I reviewed the deletion review discussion and it appears that the case is being considered carefully with the involvement of some experienced editors supporting relisting the debate. As I am not an administrator I cannot view the article or its edit history, so I can't really comment. Please let me know if/when the AfD is relisted. Or if it isn't you can request the article be "userfied" and I would be happy to take a look and see what we can do to recreate an improved version. In the meantime I don't know what I can do. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Roecker

I have provided some links to a good amount of sources on the AfD page. Care to take a look and reevaluate your position? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Jawug, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 20:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I assure you I didn't create this page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight/Archive

Just a friendly note about ChildofMidnight/Archive. You accidentally created it in article space -- I took the liberty of moving it to User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

West Band

Hey,

I was wondering...since I just put some news article links on the West Johnston High School Marching Band page, will that be sufficient to keep it from being deleted speedily?

ThanksOverseer1113 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok so how would I put it under the school website and bump it? ::Ok i moved it to the West Johnston High School page...now how should I work to minimilized it...cuz the reason I started the page was to provide all the info about the band. And how do i bump it from the original. Thanks

Overseer1113 (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Idk where they went...if you could get them that'd be great. Also...can u get paid to edit wiki pages? lol Overseer1113 (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ok ty for your help...got one more thing...what does the "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." mean?Overseer1113 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

what do u mean by not encyclopedic? and what about the references?Overseer1113 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)