User talk:Dennis Brown: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:54, 29 October 2008

Archives

Current archive of old talk
Archive of 2006 and 2007 talk
Sandbox
Watchlist
Essays I am working on, and request help on:
Pre Delete Trauma
WP:Don't bludgeon the process now in mainspace.
Don't Bludgeon The Process (archive of working copy)

Please Read Before Posting Here

If your message is about an ARTICLE, use the TALK section there instead (so everyone can contribute to the discussion). If you see a topic removed from this page, check the archive page as I archive frequently. If you want to continue a conversation, just copy from the archive to here. Thanks -db

hey ya know i am sorry about what i said about you i am just kida upset about how it got deleted am i dont understand what you said about it. anyway sorry about it and i hope you can forgive me.

No problem. We all have bad days. At first, I didn't know if the school met policy ("notable" is a policy here, the word doesn't mean the same thing in the real world). After researching it, I think it is, and I am trying to get the article saved. I find that on Wikipedia (and in life) it is sometimes best to wait a day before I go off on someone. That way I have had time to cool off and find a more creative way to express my "concerns". All part of growing up. Oh, and if you will add ~~~~ after your typing (its next to the 1, use the shift key), it will automatically add your name and time to your comments. It is the preferred way here at Wikipedia. You can even customize your "sig", like I have mine, with colors and different characters/capitalizations. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O i dont appologize to FUCK UPs and u definitly fall into that category shit face

AFD for software comparisons

This is the research section for putting software comparisons (in general) up for afd. Feel free to make a good faith edit.

(nom text)

These are all fairly recent articles (2008). Comparing software means as new versions come out, the old data is obsoleted, thus old versions have no historic or encyclopedic value. A software comparison article, even when properly sourced, becomes original research due to deciding which features to have in the chart, which don't, how many, which brands, and in too many other ways to list, even IF you have 100 sources per brand of software. (indescriminate selection) In some cases it borders on advertising. Several different articles are listed as it is my opinion that the entire class of "Comparison of $x software" is not within policy as WP:LISTS only considers comparitive lists when used as embedded lists, not as articles. Even if they are useful or interesting or popular, they don't belong in an encyclopedia, they belong in a magazine. ~~~~

(end nom text) conversation starts here

The Yaakov Weinberg deletion

Per your comment in the deletion debate, you stated that "the policy says notability is about being ABLE to verify" however the general Wikipedia notability guideline requires that a topic receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It does not mean simply pulling up any random unsourced and unverified data in Google (which someone can do with any search term) and claiming that this so-called verification constitutes notability. You can read the Wikipedia Notability guide here Wikipedia:Notability. Hope this helps. Eatabullet (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I means is this: If an article can be verified, but it isn't, then it is still notable. If there are wp:rs sources out there, but just not in the article, then you TAG the article, you don't delete it. Many of the links I put up clearly pass wp:rs, he is a published author as well. I undertand the policy, I have over 7,000 edits here and have been copywriting for over 20 years. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg Vs Obama AfD

Just to let you know, I didn't add that link you accuse me of on my talk page.

Also, you removed this link, which quite frankly is the only reliable source you have in that article. Please put it back. Regards, 68.143.88.2 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake on your addition, but the reason I deleted the citation you did add was that the fact that Berg being a Clinton support isn't relevent to the subject matter. I would suggest bringing it up in the article talk and seeing if a concensus thinks it belongs, although I really think it doesn't. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravedactyl: Project Evolution

The article is somewhat better, as I found a few things that Raven missed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just reverted them. Sorry. You can't use "user" reviews as a source. I found those myself before and didn't add them because they don't pass policy. I really looked hard for sources on this one, and some of the sources listed even now really don't pass. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 01:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Liberty in popular culture

What a cleanup! Thanks for that, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment

Re this edit on Barbara Steele Thibodeaux: I would prefer if people would include in the edit summary a phrase such as "Nominating for speedy deletion" or equivalent meaning when doing so. Thanks. Otherwise, I have no problem with the edit. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravedactyl: Project Evolution

Found the award source. Added it to article. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus

I think they're non-notable. I'm more annoyed by the guy creating and maintaining a vanity autobio, Brent Kado. I've prodded it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the vanity piece (and just prod2'ed it), but the Lotus article may be ok with the sources that just came to light. I wouldn't want to slam him on a potentially valid article just because he wrote a fluff piece on himself in another article. In short, imo, the Lotus article seems to be in good faith. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 * No problem.  We all have bad days.  At first, I didn't know if the school met policy ("notable" is a policy here, the word doesn't mean the same thing in the real world).  After researching it, I think it is, and I am trying to get the article saved. I find that on Wikipedia (and in life) it is sometimes best to wait a day before I go off on someone.  That way I have had time to cool off and find a more creative way to express my "concerns".  All part of growing up.  Oh, and if you will add <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your typing (its next to the 1, use the shift key), it will automatically add your name and time to your comments.  It is the preferred way here at Wikipedia.  You can even customize your "sig", like I have mine, with colors and different characters/capitalizations. [[User:Pharmboy|<strong><font color="#666622">P<small>HARMBOY</small></font>]] ([[User talk:Pharmboy|<small>TALK</small></strong>]]) 19:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
+O i dont appologize to FUCK UPs and u definitly fall into that category shit face
 ==AFD for software comparisons==