Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Comment

There's no pleasing some people, is there? - House of Scandal (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Apparently not, here he is set up to be the gracious winner, and instead we've got us a sore loser, only he's not losing. Well, we've both made a good effort here, so what can you do? Beeblbrox (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Because the content of the page of Manga Kenkanryu had been biased, I tried to edit it though I was Japanese. However, it has been disturbed by BOT. Cannot everything able to be deleted excluding the template etc. when the entire article is wrong, and why done the thing restricted to a concise description?PS . My English is inconvenient. --NIKYOKUZYU (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It consented. We wish to express our gratitude for advice.--NIKYOKUZYU (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bastet

That was a good decision to remove the 'multiple issues' tag from the Bastet (mythology) article. I pondered removing it too. I contacted an expert on Egyptology and he thought it was well written. So do I. Had no major issues on the article except for the lack of sourced references. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome Beelbrox. And yes...that was a 'constructive edit.' I don't know why someone placed the multiple issues tag on it in the first place. Bastet just lacked references, taht's all. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: CAFETY

Wow...so giving Congressional testimony and being instrumental in drafted legislation isn't sufficiently noteworthy? I didn't even have the opportunity to complete the reference structure before the article was deleted in mid-edit!

Please explain why this does not qualify. - Wikiwag 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Of course with it now having been deleted, I can't see what you may have added between when I last saw it and deletion, but it seemed to me you were making a claim of "being instrumental" in this legislation that was not supported by the sources being cited, thus constituting a possible synthesis violation. In other words, drawing conclusions based on our own observations constitutes original research and is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy on verification through reliable sources. If you believe you can re-create the article with citations that verify these claims, I'm sure the administrator who blocked creation of the article would be willing to unblock, but I would also caution you to be sure you are acting only in the best interest of the project and do not have any conflicting interests. If this subject is one you are closely associated with, it is better to let a neutral third party develop the article. You can also click here to request that the article be created. Thanks Beeblbrox (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's just it. I'm not "closely associated" with them, in fact not even loosely associated with them. I thought it was a compelling reality that a small grass-roots organization got the attention of a Congressional committee and helped draft the proposed legislation. Particularly when this fellow, a CAFETY director whom I've never even heard of, has his own personal page with far thinner citations. - Wikiwag 21:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Understood that I am too close to the topic, but I also have a legal right to refute a statement made directly against myself, or to ask that the statement be deleted as well. It's funny how there seems to be no problem with these programs (see Mission Mountain School as well) paying people to change their information, even though it is not true. Yet, for sworn testimony before Congress, as well as news articles about such testimony, it can't be done because we're "too close"...ok, so if I pay a random stranger, or even ASK a random stranger to cite, are they "too close" since they met me? How about making something somewhat BALANCED? Or at the very least...not post false statements....i.e. there has been documented evidence from administrators at four separate colleges that Betton House is NOT affiliated with any of them...yet, the entry STILL states that the program had affiliations with local colleges. This is a FRAUDULENT statement, which Betton House has been forced to rectify. The fact that the emails from the colleges were first person, is irrelevant. It remains a published LIE and one of the same lies these programs have been investigated for.----Djjone5ny
Ok, I understand your frustration and I can see you are willing to at least discuss matters. As with everything else here at Wikipedia, we can settle this issue by trying to find consensus. I would reccomend to you that you follow this link to initiate a wider discussion on the subject of bias in the articles you refer to. I think you will find that most Wikipedians are reasonable and have an interest in presenting as close to a balanced perspective as can be achieved. Content such as you refer to that is controversial and without sourcing should of course be removed. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural land -- FAOSTAT definition

Thanks for your comment regarding the unhelpful reference. Please look at the improved reference I have inserted in Agricultural land and tell me if this is now adequate. If not, I will try to find alternative sources for this definition.--Zlerman (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • That is definitely better as it makes it more clear exactly what part of the page you are referencing, but a proper permanent link would be better. Click here to learn more about citing your sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsfroup

Newsfroup isn't an implausible typo; in fact, it's relatively common. [1]. In any case, ignore the part where I refer to you as a bot, I read your m as an b for some reason. Feezo (Talk) 07:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bridge club delete

You are right. I know that this club is notable but have no idea how to source it. I didn't intend to remove the notability template, that was an accident. At least make it an AFD rather than than a PROD. Zargulon (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lone Star

Hi, a couple of points: (1) Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions sets out that the dab page should be at Lone Star, as there isn't an established "Primary usage" for the term. And (2), if you think a page needs to be moved, please do so using the "Move" button at the top - that way the page history gets kept associated with the new page. I'm going to put things back the way they were a few minutes ago, hope you don't mind. PamD (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't have particularly strong feelings about it either way, and I admit I had not previously read the page you linked. I was going to try moving it, but I didn't think it would work since there was already a page with the title I was going to move it to. I've never actually tried that but it seems unlikely... Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You can move it to an existing page which is just a redirect to the page you're moving, as long as there's no past history. Basically, try doing a Move, and if it won't work it politely tells you so! At that point you're supposed to ask for Admin help, I think... the reply page tells you how to do so. PamD (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Timothy Hodge

I also know of Timothy Hodge and things in the article are true and proff of him being apart of the Choir , just call the Grace Church Choir in Newark,New jersey they have records down there, he was the most notable member that every existed. and as far as T V appearances, just contact bet production department, they have it on vhs, , im very displeased about his article being consider for deletion.

User Sunpop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunpop (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

article Timothy Hodge

do me a favor take the time to research, the person is real, and is very much active ,and/or if the page is not in perfect format, go in and do changes, but it being up for deletions is wrong, respect this person hard work, its all i ask

--Sunpop (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)sunpop--Sunpop (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the message[2]. I wrote a delete !vote, I'm not sure what happened there but thanks for sorting it out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoygabsadds 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

my articles

if u see there are not correct, then edit them, but im goin to look at some others and see, i have seen worse then what i ahve started and those articles have not been up for deletion, the information i have on the site is very much true, i think u people hev nothing better esle to do,

--Daisy404 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)dasiy404--Daisy404 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Timothy Hodge

If u are familar with how all the guidelines go then, why dont u edit the page,, ima go bakc in and put information and artcles, but i refuse to let it be deleted,

--Daisy404 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Underwood

Hi Beeblbrox -- thank you for taking the time to look at the Underwood Deviled Ham page. The section you marked as trivia, although superficially similar to other lists which are indeed trivia, is actually a very important section because it shows that deviled ham is still present in the minds of a wide range of people, and that further people who may not even eat deviled ham nonetheless encounter it in these cultural products (books, tv shows...). The company ceased to exist in 1982, yet the product lives on, but as more than just a can on the shelf at grocery stores, it lives on as a cultural reference as well, which is in some ways much more important. I am sorry I was not very clear about the Rachel Ray reference, she is clearly inspired by Underwood deviled ham since it is the only deviled ham, and having Food TV chefs who have their own show refer to a product, albeit without mentioning the brand, shows the importance of that product. If there were many brands of deviled ham widely sold, this would not be so. I have tried to clarify that. Your comments have indeed helped make the page better! Thanks! --Wmjames (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Spud (Disambiguation)

I keep adding an entry for Spud the cat. He appears in a commercial for "Nature's Variety" raw food website. I have provided the website as a reference. I also noted on my edits that if you use a search engine and type the words "nature's variety spud" then the video he is in and his photograph appear. The entry is continually deleted without any given reason.

  • That is exactly why I suggested you discuss it on the talk page. If an edit is contraversial, the best thing to do is to discuss it with other editors in order to form a consensus on the issue. Simply getting a hit from a search engine does not get you past the general notability guideline, you need to demonstrate that "spud the gay cat" has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in at least one reliable source. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That is why I added the link which directs people to the website that has the commercial. I can also add a second website as a reference too. Obviously some people are deleting the edit without checking the reference. Homophobia or racism possibly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll try one more time to explain: The website that the content is from is not considered a reliable source. Click here for more information on what a reliable source is. If an edit you are making keeps getting reverted my multiple editors, you should discuss it on the article's talk page. You can do that by clicking the "discussion" button at the top of the page. Click here for more information on how consensus works. Please leave your baseless accusations of racism and homophobia out of the conversation. Click here for more information on interacting with other editors. If you need additional help, you can click the "help" button on the left hand side of the page, or consider working with a mentor who can help guide you. Click here for more information on that. Thanks and good luck. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ricochet

verifiability isn't notability dudeMY♥INchile 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I got your point re. links. Re. prose, I can convert it but I sincerely feel that an year-wise list of events is more reader-friendly rather than too many paragraphs or lengthy prose. --Hsarpotdar1 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding stub tags where there's already a categorised stub tag, and please add stubs at end of article

Hi, Please don't add {{stub}} to articles like Stephen Bacon House when they already have categorised stub tags, as you did here - it just wastes the time of people at WP:STUBSORT. If you think it lacks notability, use {{notable}}. And if you're going to add a stub tag, please add it at the end of the article - it makes life easier for people doing stub-sorting. See WP:STUB which says "By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last." Thanks, PamD (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

oops. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

George Feigley

He was the headline for multiple newspapers today. He is a cult leader. A religious cult leader. Isn't that worthy of a wikipedia page? Murderers and cult leaders are all across Wikipedia. This wasn't an attack page. It was a page about a religious cult leader. The Rypcord. 01:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The issue is not notability, the problem is you did not cite a single source, and the tone of the article violated Wikipedia policies on point of view. If you could re-create it with neutral language and proper sourcing, it would probably be just fine. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging stubs within seconds of creation?

Since a stub is the first step in the creation of an article, they are rarely sourced. I don't see the utility of marking a stub that is less than scarcely a minute old "unreferenced". In fact, many Wikipedians would consider the act downright antagonistic.Robert A.West (Talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you took offense, but readers of Wikipedia (we are creating content for others to read after all) should be aware if they are reading unverified material. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The {{unreferenced}} tag does not exist to warn readers -- anyone can see that there are no references -- it exists to mark articles as requiring improvement and as a courteous warning prior to deleting material. Such a tag is nearly always superfluous for a stub, since the fact that it is a stub marks it for improvement, and 90 seconds is a bit short for a warning about impending deletion of material, since it can take longer than that to fill out a {{citebook}}. In any case, having expressed my annoyance, I am now going back to put in the references I have.Robert A.West (Talk) 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have done some reading up on this, and it seems I was unaware that that it is indeed considered impolite to tag stubs as unsourced. All I can say is that every time I think I've got the hang of things around here, some issue like this seems to come up and I remember how huge this project really is and how much there is to know. Anyway, sorry and thanks for letting me know what a faux pas that was. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I have not understood the word Personal Attack. My article Montreal police shooting and killing an 18 years old sparks riot is about a Riot that just happened. I did not attack anyone but merely stated the facts from the news? Peace out. Abdowiki (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox/Archive_4&oldid=1263038653"