User talk:Guthriewinters

Welcome

Welcome to my Talk page. Feel free to leave any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding my contributions.

RE: Mill Valley

(Copied from my profile) You removed a section of the "2008: Consecutive sewage spills" text, yet gave vague reasoning. What is speculative about saying that 5 million+ gallons of mostly-raw sewage, combined with an oil spill of global infamy, contributed substantially to the environmental degradation of the S.F. Bay? It would be speculative to say that it did not do this. It was left uncited because it only takes a bit of common sense and some basic biological principles to affirm that fact, and one (hopefully) should not need to seek this in any literature. The impact is important and undeniable. It is also discussed by every other article cited in that section. What was your reasoning? What would it take to make you "believe" something like that? o0O [GUTH3] O0o (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing vague about "Removing speculative and unsourced statement". Yes, it may make sense that such a spill must have had some negative impact on the ecosystem. But this is an encyclopedia of facts, not "common sense" statements and speculation. And there is a huge difference between such a common sense assumption and the statement, "these sewage spills contributed substantially to the environmental degradation of the San Francisco Bay Area". Now if there are reputable primary sources out there that state that this spill did in fact "contribute substantially to the environmental degradation of the bay area" (I would think this would either have to come from a scientific report or quoted scientist), please by all means source them. Cheers! Newtman (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I may have assumed in my statement that your hasty removal of that sentence stemmed from indignation or that you were of the more reckless sort of Remover who goes immediately for the new edits, especially on touchy subjects. Your defense of the removal is quite valid. o0O [GUTH3] O0o (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend that next time you assume good faith or at the very least check the contribution history of someone who's edit you're unsure about it. We're all on the same side here, and there's already enough negativity to go around on wikipedia ;) Newtman (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to keep discussing the issue, I will point out that there are many more unsourced and speculative statements on the same page that, in your assiduous dedication to the removal of anything remotely POV, you have missed, such as "Mill Valley is known as an artsy town." I grew up there and I know it as nothing of the sort, whatever "artsy" means in the first place. That is a flagrantly unencyclopedic thing to leave up, yet it stays. When I carry out such a thorough review of a page that I remove statements like the one you removed from my edit, I make sure that I remove all such statements on the page in order to avoid glaring contrasts between sections, like the one that now exists between my sewage spill entry (bare bones, free of "POV" thanks to Newtman) and the "artsy little town" stuff. o0O [GUTH3] O0o (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Patrick McGinley

A tag has been placed on Patrick McGinley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Newtman (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Patrick McGinley

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Patrick McGinley, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Newtman (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGinley

Glad to have helped out, and thanks for the note. I do a lot of deprodding; he was a clear keep, and his books sound good. Regards, John Z (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles Benninghoff

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Charles Benninghoff, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Piracy participation update

Hello Guthriewinters,

WikiProject Piracy is currently undergoing some updates and changes, and we are trying to find out who is still active in the project. You are currently listed as a participant on the list of participants, and we would like for you to update your status. Please move your name to the section that best describes your activity in the project:

Active - still active and interested within the scope of the WikiProject.
Semi-Active - still active on Wikipedia, but not as active in regards to the WikiProject.
Former Members - a catch-all classification for those editors who are not active on Wikipedia, those that are still on Wikipedia, but no longer part of this WikiProject, or those that have otherwise not moved their names to another classification yet.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]