User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archives/2008/November

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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:Not and keep up the good work. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...

) 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ChildofMidnight/Archives/2008, and

. 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

) 07:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

		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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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: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:

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  = 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:

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:

Please fell free to ask me any questions,

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on

) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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

04:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold Spring Tavern

I just saw that you are actually the one to bring

) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.

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

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)

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

) 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)

Thank you very much for your kind words! They are much appreciated.

) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...on that surfer band AfD and throughout Wikipedia. I enjoy your contributions. Keep up the fine work!

) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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! :)

talk

) 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:

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: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)

I'm making this proposal

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)

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)

I see you added a Notability template to the article

) 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)

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)

For the record, I am not one. :) But I would think that yes, that would meet

01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that

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.

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)

This article is in a style similar to that of

-- 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)

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)

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 peek at

) 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)

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)

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

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)

Due to the constant disruption of

) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

, 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

		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)

Hi, per

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)

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)