User talk:XSG/Archive 1

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.

Hi. I'm not sure what your objective was and maybe I'm missing something, but deleting all the content on a page and then marking it for deletion because it's blank is not the right way to delete something.^[1][2] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake -- thanks for the explanation.^[3] I have left a longer response on my talk page.^[4]

My apologies for bothering you with this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello... please stop the page creation and cut-and-paste moves until the discussion is resolved. As it now stands, there is no consensus to move Palin to any other position. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might like to know that the article Mr. Cord, which you prodded, had the prod tags removed by the creator User:Pablocordero (with no justification). I was going to take it to AfD, but I wanted to see if you wanted to do it before I did. Thanks, Matty (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

This edit fails to explain why the speedy deletion has been declined, and I don't see that you've left a rationale on the talk page. The page was nominated for deletion in order to move the

09:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is why I removed the tag. The {{

ZAMAK for deletion using {{db-move}}. —  X  S  G 

16:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez

Talk to me!

←at≈:→ 07:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lackthereof

Please improve Lackthereof so it is clear which albums were produced by which major labels. Without this information, I must vote against in the AfD. With it, I can look whether the labels meet my subjective qualification of "major" and whether the albums were notable in any particular way or whether they were "merely" published by the labels but never promoted. Having some indication of how many copies sold would help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for not communicating well. I should've been a bit more tactful. In any case, the issue is moot now that I've changed my vote. See AfD for more comments on this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a hoax, hence the tag. I was actually about to remove it but you beat me to it. Thanks! TallNapoleon (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that Google News turns up a sizable number of hits, so it does not appear to be a hoax. Therefore I removed the PROD (is that the correct thing to do, or should I have changed the reason?) It may still be AFD material however. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your question about the redlink in the nom tag. This often happens when nominating using Twinkle, and, as you saw, it is fixed the next time anyone edits the page. I usually go right back after nominating to see if this has happened, and do a null edit, such as adding a space inside the hidden comments of the AfD tag, and that fixes it. I don't know why it happens, but any subsequent edit to the page fixes it automatically.

) 05:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the explanation. I'd only just started to use Twinkle, so that explains things! —  X  S  G  13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

advised of the external link policy. You're welcome to contribute to the list. It appears that you're very new. You will find my comment is nothing more than a suggestion.

05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

that you use the edit summary each time you make an edit. That way other editors can see your direction with the article. By leaving the summary blank you are implying that you are the only one working on it. Please consider using it.

05:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to butt in here, but where, in the Wikipedia guidelines/policies, does it specifically state that by not leaving an edit summary, one is insinuating that they are the only one working on the article? Thanks. Ms. Sarita (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I was just going to ignore him so he and his made-up Wikipediaisms would just kind of disappear. —  X  S  G  08:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets be real. My statement that got you irked was the one about the external links. That was your first improvement idea for the list. We don't do links in articles. You seemed to not like it that I said that, but it is policy. So why we're you irked? This project is huge and presents a problem in communicating because we only have this digital form of getting messages across. That is why I ask you to leave a summary when you edit. It is very important in terms of collaboration, which you yourself brought up. You have irked me too, but don't you think this process would be easier if we could see each other face to face? So, take it easy, use your edit summary, and take suggestions. I never mandated that you do anything. That was in your head. You got weird when I said external links are not used in articles. K bye

Hi '

08:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me mention that a simple "Per WP:[whatever guideline]" link would have sufficed for the explanation of external link usage in article mainspace.

I would love to work with you, E_dog95, on bettering the article in question and I think you found some great references for the list. But I am inclined to agree with XSG that your "holier than thou" behavior has really gotten all of us on the wrong foot. For example:

• The deletion of a major list of events important to Santa Cruz without discussing it first is what irked me the hell out.
• The assumption that XSG is a "very new member" because he/she doesn't know about every single policy on Wikipedia when he/she has actually been a member of Wikipedia longer than you have.
• Your insinuation that what is deemed notable and important to Santa Cruz is based on references...? As a native of the city, I know that all of the items in the list are notable and/or important to "Santa Cruzians". Period. We can simply take a look at the Santa Cruz Sentinel archives and find all of the references you want.

These are all prime examples of why this "collaboration" is not going so well as it could have.

My apologies, XSG. I will now exit your talk page. Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're very welcome here, Ms. Sarita. It's a pleasure to edit with you. —  X  S  G  15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's be real, E_dog95. My issue is not with what you say, it's with how you say it. Let's start with your first comment after I attempted to collaborate with you. You wrote:

"Well this isn't a good start. External links don't belong in the body of the article. And if we have references they should be independent items, not simply links to the home page of the item. But the lgbt parade may be worth including because of its cultural value."

The very first thing you had to say is "Well, this isn't a good start." You made a claim rather than stating your opinion. If you really felt the need to lead with this concept, you may have done better to say "It is my opinion that this isn't a good start." But the statement in itself is entirely unnecessary and the entire statement you make would have been even more powerful if you'd left your personal criticisms off. What's more, Ms. Sarita has nailed it, your statement would actually be useful if you had used policy or guideline links to support your claims. You'll also note that presenting Wikipedia guidelines as policies may offend the people who actually know the difference. Here's how I would recommend you approach such a situation in the future:

"I interpret the

second-party

. I do like the idea of including the LGBT parade for its cultural value."

And that's how you go about sharing your ideas rather than insisting on them, and earning the respect of other editors. —  X  S  G  15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded brusque though I don't think it was out of line. None of what I said was unacceptable. Was there a better way? Yeah, there's always a better way. I did not insist on anything. I assumed wrongly, xsg, that you were new. My bad.

Ms Sarita... Let me tell you that I appreciate your attachment to SC, I do not think that all Santa Cruzans think that the whole list of items is / was notable. The reason that I know this is that if this was the case the list would have never been a bunch of red links with no prose. Notable items get written about because people like them. I will apologize for stepping on your toes though. Take care.

19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to give you a note that I have contested your {{

11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have too, had I seen that reference. I've changed the section title to "References" so that it won't be so easy to make the same mistake again. —  X  S  G  15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Brently Heilbron page. I certainly appreciate your help in solidifying the sources. Hopefully, subject's notability will be voted on and confirmed. Anyway, the article has improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carneycode (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought unsourced material was allowed in a

WP:BLP if not contraversial or disputed in the real world; i.e., X appeared in production Y could be tentatively listed if he said he was in Y, and Y is so obscure that it would be difficult to disconfirm. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive prod nominations.

Please read

) 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but... what the hell are you talking about?! —  X  S  G  21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you've removed the PROD from several articles that I've PRODded. I wasn't trying to make a

WP:POINT, I was trying to remove non-notable cruft from Wikipedia. Now, since the PRODs were challenged without attending to the notability concerns, I'm putting them all through the AfD process. Your "threat" to copy articles I nominate to other sites is fine by me, if it's so important to you that these miniscule articles are kept somewhere. And it's actually people like me who try to keep Wikipedia free from articles on everything non-notable under the sun. I can see you have some sort of agenda; make yourself known and let's discuss, otherwise your nonsense isn't welcome on my Talk page. —  X  S  G 

22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Ave

Gotcha. See, I didn't even know that. The majority of the time, if a template is placed then it requires some talk or other effort (or consensus) to take it off. I had no idea it was like this to contest the nomination. Thanks. Eric

Hi '

04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Disam

Why thank you! :) I really appreciate that. Yes, it's all done manually. I never have mastered TWINKLE or any of the other tools. Anyway, I truly appreciate the compliment. It means alot to me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I realized that you marked my first draft for speedy deletion before even 3 hours had passed. I think this makes writers of new articles paranoid because it creates an atmosphere that an article must be perfect upon first introduction. I'm more the fashion of group-write, not chop it down before it starts. Let it percolate, permit some time to pass so other writers can contribute. I'm not into immediacy. And actually, my article stated the importance of the biography before you marked it for Speedy Del, claiming that was missing. It was there, but you did not recognize it because it was not perfect. I think at least you should have marked it as a stub. How perfect must an article be? How famous must a character be? When does recent become history? It takes no effort to kill something. It takes a lot to keep it alive. Kristinwt (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

First, please note that I didn't put the article up for a

Proposed Un-controversial Deletion

, which gives the author a minimum of five days to improve the article before it gets deleted. And since PRODs can be removed by anyone and for any reason where as a CSD cannot be removed by the original author, I think this is perfectly fair and in the spirit of simply serving notice that at least one person felt the article's subject didn't belong in Wikipedia. I also provided a more thorough reason for why I thought the subject didn't deserve a Wikipedia article, allowing you to target your future edits if you chose to do so.

Now, taking a step back from the procedural side of things, I performed research outside of what was presented in the article and came to the conclusion that the subject was not notable. In the event that I'm correct and the article is deleted, marking it for a non-speedy deletion after just three hours is doing you a favor: at least you'd been made aware of the hurdle you were up against and had a choice as to whether continuing was worth your time. Three hours lost rather than twenty: that's a favor. And if I'm wrong: no harm, no foul.

You'll find that my actions were not the actions of a Wikipedia Deletionist. You were treated more than fairly. If you have paranoia issues as a result, perhaps introducing new Wikipedia articles isn't something you should be doing. And finally, Wikipedia isn't about your way of doing things. Okay, so you're not into immediacy. You're going to have to make some compromises on the way you'd like things to be done. That's just the way it is when it's no longer just about you and you're up against competing goals, philosophies, and principles. —  X  S  G  19:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CalendarWatcher: Regarding your blanket reversion of my additions to dates of record point changes in the DJIA with the comment "Regarding your comment that "Not every zig-zag of a single national stock exchange is worth noting," and, "Actually, it is (London, Tokyo, Paris?) and none of these are historic, merely transitory," I find your arguments to be disingenuous for the following reasons:

1. This is the English Language Wikipedia. A serious argument can be made that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is the single most monitored stock index in the world, not just in the English language, and it is therefore specious to maintain that it is just "a single national stock exchange".
2. The entries I've made were for days in which the DJIA had achieved a record point change. These records are set only very infrequently. It's not that the market hit a record high; that kind of information becomes non-notable usually after a short period of time. These weren't just ordinary "zig-zags". These were days of large consequence to the world of corporate finance.
3. Prior to my additions, there were existing precedences for inclusion of the same kind of material, including September 29, October 19, October 27, and October 13. Arbitrary inclusion of some of these and not others seems non-encyclopedic.
4. Just because these dates are not memorable for you now does not mean that they were not notable at the time.
5. Your actions are of someone who thinks they
   WP:OWN
   these articles. If you disagree with the change, it is more proper to talk about them prior to their removal unless the content addition blatantly doesn't belong.

—  X  S  G  10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Perhaps you've heard of the

? Even the Wall Street Journal has heard of them. Nonetheless, the English-language aspect isn't really relevant, and arguing a special case based on language isn't very convincing.

2) And, once again, none of these are historic, merely transitory. That they don't happen every week doesn't change that basic fact.

3)

. It's also quite probable that these have been over-looked. I'll check them out when I get the chance, though I've wasted enough time on this.

4) Just because these dates are memorable for you does not mean that they are globally--or even regionally--notable or historic over time.

5) Your actions are those of someone who thinks

is the way to get his way. If you want to add material or make changes, the burden of proof lies--and has always lain--with the editor adding the material or making the changes: THAT is the proper method.

6)

) 10:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I made a good faith addition to four separate articles and then reverted twice, as anyone viewing the history can tell. It is you who has violated

WP:3RR. —  X  S  G 

10:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the notice and pay attention to its actual words. Also,

read this link to correct your misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of the rule. --CalendarWatcher (talk

) 10:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see where it says a user must not perform more than three reverts on a page. I've reverted three times, you've reverted three times, now stop acting like you

WP:OWN these articles and actually discuss it on the pages before you revert good-faith additions to pages. —  X  S  G 

10:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now... to address your content, since it's pretty clear that neither of us have violated 3RR and I trust that you won't...

It's pretty cleared that skipped over the inconvenient parts: . Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the

three-revert rule

. Your legalisms not withstanding, you, in fact, were edit-warring, when, again, the burden of evidence lies with that whom wants to make the change or add the material.

1) Perhaps you've heard of the

NASDAQ

? Even the Wall Street Journal has heard of them. Nonetheless, the English-language aspect isn't really relevant, and arguing a special case based on language isn't very convincing.

• I didn't suggest that the English language was relevant, per se, I was suggesting that the DJIA is the most well-known stock index for all countries served by the English Wikipedia. I wouldn't make the same argument for the Japanese Wikipedia. It isn't the language so much as that articles and content that are relevant to other Wikipedias aren't necessarily relevant here, and in this case, the
  DJIA
  is the most relevant stock index. Conversely, these point losses are relevant to the English Wikipedia whereas they wouldn't be relevant to the Japanes Wikipedia.

• You suggested precisely a special place for the American stock index based on this being the English-language Wikipedia--and you're certainly putting forth your personal opinion as if it were objective fact--when you say that the DJIA is the 'most well-known stock index for all countries served by the English Wikipedia'. Even granting that, what is the real-world significance of that fairly arbitrary number?

2) And, once again, none of these are historic, merely transitory. That they don't happen every week doesn't change that basic fact.

• You overestimate the frequency at which the DJIA sets record point changes. That they happen only once or twice a decade makes it more important. In some cases, it goes for quite a long while, like the gap between 1987 and 2000. That they are generally considered stock market crashes is important and, I posit, historical. Perhaps you don't remember these dates because you weren't investing at the time, however many people do.

• I over-estimated nothing (since I gave no estimate) nor does my point depend on whatever arbitrary frequency you've decided is important: whether these local minima/maxima occur every ten days or every ten years is immaterial to them being transitory local minima/maxima.

3)

Not convincing

. It's also quite probable that these have been over-looked. I'll check them out when I get the chance, though I've wasted enough time on this.

• You'd be white-washing history. Some of these days have names, like
  WP:OWNership
  , in light of your reversion of my good-faith edits.

• What, pray tell, is meant by 'white-washing history'? What foul deeds will I obscure, what black and murky troubles will I hide, what
  WP:3rr
  .

4) Just because these dates are memorable for you does not mean that they are globally--or even regionally--notable or historic over time.

• True, but contrarily, just because the dates are not memorable for you does not mean that they are not globally or even regionally notable or historic. I'll start pulling up news articles referencing each of the dates, if you like.

• No, as has already been pointed out, they're not globally--or even regionally--notable or historic over time. That you have a deep personal interest in them means nothing in the larger world. And unless your news articles are something more significant than a Reuters stock-market update ('The Dow Jones industrial average .DJI rose 154.59 points, or 2.05 percent, at 7,706.88') and do not provide some backing for the claim of importance, then I'm afraid they're utterly meaningless.

5) Your actions are those of someone who thinks

bullying

is the way to get his way. If you want to add material or make changes, the burden of proof lies--and has always lain--with the editor adding the material or making the changes: THAT is the proper method.

• This is how I respond to someone who reverts good-faith edits without first discussing them. I get that you disagree. We should have had this conversation before the edit war. I also want to re-iterate that I have not today nor ever in the past broken 3RR. —  X  S  G  10:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we should have had this conversation the moment you were first reverted rather than after your attempt to bully through--and no, edit-warring as you've done is makes whatevr claims about "good faith" pretty much meaningless. For the third or fourth time, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Any event that includes the words "at the time" indicates that the event is no longer notable and does not have long term notability. Thus it should be excluded. If you have not read

14:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter. I grant that there's logic to your argument. I've read

WP:DOY

and note no mention of events of economic consequence, so in light of this (and with the desire to route out any historical systemic bias), I'd like to better understand treatment of what appear to be edge cases:

• DJIA isn't notable today. A 12% decline in the index certainly sounds more noteworthy, however it is dwarfed by the downturn of Black Monday (1987), and yet you've noted that falling 500 points in a day in 1985 (or 1987 in actuality) isn't a big deal now. So why are these events included on their relevant days (October 24 - 1929, October 28 - 1929, October 29 - 1929, and October 19
  - 1987)?
• October 27 - 1997 is recorded as well. By most standards, the "mini-crash" of 1997 already isn't historically significant. It is this specific inclusion that led to my belief that all days with a wide swing in the DJIA must be considered important. Is there a reason for this event's inclusion?
• Finally, you've stated that the only events relating to the DJIA that are notable might be all-time highs. I disagree about this because when the market is on an up-swing, it can set all-time highs for several days or weeks in a row sequentially, and none of those days seems particularly important. I don't think any all-time high will stand for particular long (a matter of a few years, perhaps?) and therefore none are notable. I believe it is the days with large changes that are far more relevant, historically. Those are the days which make and break families and investors. By that standard, the events of 1929, 1987, 1997, 2000, and a few days in 2008 are historically significant from an economic standpoint. I believe that the inclusion of the above dates lends credence to this argument. —  X  S  G  16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also noting that following the above discussion, I've undone my edits. I hope I can convince that my edits are worthy of inclusion, however as a courtesy to the established editors who presently disagree, I think this is the most prudent approach to take... —  X  S  G  16:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• You've once again fallen back onto
  an unconvincing argument
  , albeit dressed up in complicated flourishes. Attempting to build some sort of comparative case is meaningless: the individual cases must be judged on their own merits. And the local minima/maxima you seem so fascinated by have no intrinsic historic worth: they have no historic nickname (like, say 'Black Monday') or significance associated with them, nor have you shown--nor can I imagine how you will be able to--any lasting or even temporary impact stemming from the mere spike or dip in some abstract number generated by an abstract financial measurement.

Meantime, regarding your message on Mufka's talk page: No, Mufka has already judged your entries to be non-notable, and I'm simply asking him to follow through. And, once again, you quote policy without actually understanding it: it's 'assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary'. Your edit-warring over your (now for the fifth time) refusal to understand that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material has simply made it necessary. Hopefully, you will take the time to understand and follow policy, cease edit-warring because you cannot bring yourself to discuss changes, learn what edits fit and which don't, listen to feedback given (I notice that you've mostly skipped over Mufka's critique), argue honestly and not resort to irrelevancies and hiding behind policies you don't understand nor respect, and be able to differentiate between your narrow and trivial interests and the good of the encyclopaedia as a whole. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is a noted logical fallacy. Your accusation that my edit was in bad faith because I reverted your bad-faith reversion is patently flawed. Think about it this way... if you hadn't reverted my edit out-of-place, would you have considered my first edit to be in bad faith? Or is it because I reverted your reversion (because you didn't provide me with common courtesy) that you feel that my initial edit was in bad faith? And to your point that you posit I'm unwilling to discuss changes resulting in an edit war, considering the evidence on this page alone, that's just silly. The remainder of your arguments regarding my behavior seem equally disingenuous. I'm confident that upon third-party review, it is your actions which predicated my justifiable behavior. Finally, if I am debating with someone and it turns out that we agree or that I am convinced on several points, I needn't identify them point-by-point. Instead, I state that the argument is logical and point out any edge cases that still seem unresolved by the underlying argument, which is precisely what I've done here. I respect that this may be a finer point of intelligent debate, but why would you assume otherwise? —  X  S  G  16:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed your original point due to the quirky indentation. You argue that my arguments (or, in your words, "complicated flourishes") hinge on

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS

). To this end, I quote from the article's nutshell:

• "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.
• By the same token, the same logic may be used in discussions erroneously and these instances must be recognized and dismissed while still assuming good faith."

It's my belief that, in all good faith, you're erroneously using this argument. I am, in fact, calling into question whether that other stuff should be included as well while simultaneously attempting to identify what differentiates it. I believe that the existence of and entries on the

List of stock market crashes will sufficiently contradict you. The entries I've added were primarily from the Dot-com bubble. —  X  S  G 

17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll start by addressing your mention of existing entries (even though that is rarely a valid argument for inclusion of something else because stuff gets missed): I was not aware that so many were listed. If I had seen them, most would be removed. Taking 1929 as an example: It is reasonable that one date be chosen to represent the crash of 29. October 29 seems the best candidate.

In my might be case of all-time highs. I think I was misunderstood. I meant the one current all-time high. Not the succession. But even an all-time high is not much more than trivia. Does it really mean anything to the world?

I think each event needs to be evaluated on its own merits in the context of history. To bring this back to a simpler example, it is not notable that Donovan Bailey broke the 100m world record in 1996 - but it was notable while it was the current record (please don't take that as an endorsement from me of the inclusion of sports records). Perhaps a good alternative is to require that for an event to be listed, it must be the subject of its own article. That would eliminate any subjective judgments as to the notability of the event. We could add a bullet to

WP:DAYS (after approval there) that stated this as a requirement for events relating to economics. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)}

19:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood your all-time highs point. Thanks for clarifying. It makes more sense, now, however I concur that it's trivia and not worthy of inclusion. I also really like the idea of inclusion based on notability via a specific article and would like to move toward that solution. The issue is bit more contentious, however, as there are articles which cover the events without being about the specific event. For example,

Black Tuesday (1929) redirect to Wall Street Crash of 1929, however I do believe that Black Tuesday, in and of itself, was a memorable world event and deserves inclusion. The specific edge case that I'm trying to systematically rule in or out is the bubble which occurred on March 10, 2000^{Wired - Pop!}, as a part of the Dot-com bubble#Thinning the herd. It might be easy just to say we'll rule this out and let history decide how important the dot-com bubble was in a few years. I could live with that... —  X  S  G 

20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with a mention on October 29 linking to Wall Street Crash of 1929, it gives some chronology to the Depression. I'm not so sure about the listing on March 10. It could be argued that it was an all-time high for the NASDAQ and therefore it is notable. But it's only a figure. It didn't cause the end of the dotcom boom. Is it trivia? I don't know. The index was pretty stable throughout the month of March 2000. Was there an event on March 27, 2000 that caused what was the beginning of the real slide? So I don't think that this event on March 10 "signal[ed] the beginning of the end of the dot-com boom" as the entry currently says. If the event is kept, it would only be as an all-time high. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bush (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Bush. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

) 11:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When moving content from one article to another, as in the above articles, it's important to say where you took it from in the

GFDL license under which all content is released, and it can create problems if not done. Just a heads up for future moves. Best, – Toon^(talk)

23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh hey! I didn't know that! That's great info, thanks for communicating it to me! —  X  S  G  06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It's one of those things that you don't really think about until someone brings it up. :) – Toon^(talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your criticism of my reversion of your edit, and will endeavor to attend to your concerns in general in the future, I'd like to say that my reversion, in my opinion, DID improve the article, which I felt was perfectly well stated as it was before your edit. Therefore, I felt that reverting your edit was all the "improvement" the article needed, and I additionally felt that no arbitrary additional "improvement" was necessary simply to justify what I'd reverted. As a further note, if as you say, "most" of my edits are reversions, I think you will find if you look closely at the several thousand edits I've made over the years, that I improve where I can, but I do not improve something I think didn't need improving in the first place. It's possible that I underestimate the need to improve an article, but to remove something that, in my opinion, lessens the value of an article does not in itself make it incumbent upon me (or any editor) to add some sort of new material or arrangement. I revert because of vandalism, first, then because of faulty information, uncited questionable information, and (per my own opinion, as with all editors) edits that lessen the value of an article, whether by redundancy, misplacement of material, grammar, etc. When I can improve, I try to do so. Sometimes, though, there's either nothing in particular to improve after the reversion, and sometimes I don't have the time to devote to a rewrite but still want to remove something that diminishes the piece. And also, my feeling is that each of us is responsible for doing what we are able to do to improve an article, and I don't feel that if I notice someone creating a problem in an article that it is my responsibility to figure out what that person was trying to do and to do it for them. Sometimes, maybe often, I do so, but I don't feel it's my obligation, especially if a simple reversion will "improve" the article all it needs. Again, thank you for your comments. I do take them seriously, and I offer these remarks with respect. And I feel your subsequent rewrite was spot-on. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this one boggles the mind. Why did you remove the geo compass, when every other CA county article includes it? I am trying to push for article uniformity here, as right now there are way too many structural differences across this family of articles.

What does article uniformity accomplish? I will tell you. Article uniformity makes it far easier to recognise when someone logs in from an unregistered IP, and intentionally removes entire sections of an article, like what happened HERE and HERE. These instances of IP vandalism did not get caught until I did my review of ALL CA county articles a few days ago. In fact, the former instance was perpetrated back in 2007! Had these articles been identically structured and then policed on a regular basis, the IP vandalism would have been caught much sooner.

If we're going to exclude the geo compass from Santa Cruz County, then we should remove it from ALL CA county articles, simply for the sake of article uniformity. Edit Centric (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

One more item that bugs me a bit about what you did and how you accomplished it. "I'm not a fan. I'd like to remove it. Discussion?" You'd like to remove it? You removed it, before even discussing it, then asked me in the reason line not to re-add it until after discussion! Definitely NOT cricket. (Deep breath) Alright, I'll take some time to discuss this. I COULD replace the Geo compass with the same preemption that was used to remove it, but I won't, because I'm a big fan of dialogue. Now that that is off'n my chest...

What I'm not a big fan of is having BOTH the geo compass and the text list of adjacent counties. It seems redundant somehow. If we (the editors working on these articles) are actually going to DO something about this, I think we need to consider which format is;

• more aesthetically pleasing
• more accurate
• serving the reader better

...and then go with that. Edit Centric (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Edit Centric. I think things were a bit more on-the-level than you think, and I'm glad you've taken that deep breath otherwise this probably would have escalated. Please note that the date stamp of the message in which I said "I'm not a fan. I'd like to remove it. Discussion?" was 03:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC). There was absolutely no discussion on the matter by 15 December 2008, which was when I first removed the geo compass. That was a whole month-and-a-half ago, and I allowed two days for discussion on something before I removed it. In the subsequent month, there was also no discussion. Your re-addition of the geo-compass constituted a reversion of a good-faith edit without dicussion, which is generally frowned on. I know, isn't it ironic that that's what you're accusing me of, here? Regarding the discussion on the subject at hand, that belongs in the article's talk page, and I'll follow-up there. Thanks you for your good-faith editing. I hope this comment completely defuses your anger with me. —  X  S  G  17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

- just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, not an issue. BTW: Might it be better to upload all the images to Wikimedia Commons, and access them from there?

I'm taking a small Wiki-break, as I have some stuff to attend to IRL down in Madera County. I'll try to keep abreast of things from there on the laptop... Edit Centric (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to rush. We'll come to a consensus and improve articles in the time it takes us to do so. Have fun in Madera. —  X  S  G  00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a winner to me. Just looked at the one for SLO county...not bad! Not bad at all! Edit Centric (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey XSG, I have a question for you. I've noticed that all the ones that you've done so far are for the coast-side counties, which seem to be conveniently fitting in the smaller boxes that are shown. Now, once you get to the biggies, (Kern, San Berdoo, Siskiyou, Lassen) what's your plan there? Edit Centric (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see when I get there. I'll do one next. —  X  S  G  22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think San Bernardino County, California#Adjacent counties still works... —  X  S  G  23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, works! I've been thinking also, about what you were saying about the graphics displaying on mobile devices. With the possible mass-migration to "cloud-computing" and mobile devices, consideration needs to be given to this stuff from that angle. Thoughts? Edit Centric (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My conceptualization of "Cloud Computing" is the storing of personal data within a network of computers such that a request for data is made to a network service and that network service takes care of figuring out where that data is stored and communicating it back to the browser/client. It's basically a client/server model but you don't necessarily know precisely where the server that stores the data is. The client then takes care of the presentation of the data. While there are tremendous applications for the use of mobile devices within a cloud computing paradigm, I'm not quite sure I understand the relevance specifically to Wikipedia in this context. Here's an attempt at understanding the nub of your gist, though: with the development of cloud computing, we'll see a proliferation of "dumb" mobile devices; devices that know how to request and present data but don't need much of a CPU because all of the processing of the data is made through network requests, with CPU utilization occurring on a node of the cloud rather than on the mobile device. Because of this, it's very important for us to separate data from presentation (i.e. XML/XSL) and when we do combine the two we need to make sure that mobile devices have an easy time presenting the data. Ultimately, I think the trend will be toward a complete separation of data from presentation and Wikipedia is a pretty bad example of this. At the same time, the community that supports Wikipedia (i.e. you and I) will recognize the trends over time and improve the content of our favorite articles for usability of devices designed for interfacing with the cloud. That being said, did I misunderstand the question? —  X  S  G  05:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, was that the LONG answer? I mis-spoke a bit there. What I was thinking about was more along the lines of the increased preference and use of mobile devices as opposed to PCs and laptops. I personally do not own a Blackberry or an iPhone, so I have not seen how these graphics show up on those types of devices. As a matter of fact, I'm the larger scale techo-geek that has three monitors attached to the PC... Edit Centric (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The best place to do this is at

17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to your query regarding images to Wiki Commons

Edit Centric (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I had better things to do than continue watching the page and reverting stuff (like my work). I figured an hour of semi-protection was better than blocking an IP that might be shared. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Having occasionally reviewed the Semi-protection page, I regularly see admins decline protection in situations similar to what occurred on the Scotts Valley page. Considering that the IP address was responsible for vandalism on multiple pages, I would have gone with a short IP block even if it was a shared IP. —  X  S  G  04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For quickly finding sources for the Horned Toad event in the above city. talk ) 00:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. Yours,

) 00:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind explaining why? Is there a claim to notability that I'm missing somewhere? Ridernyc (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The article states that he "is a growing comedian in the Washington Metropolitan Area". I read this as an assertion of notability, so I'd like to see the article removed from Wikipedia on more solid grounds, such as the complete nonsense which constitutes most of the article's content. I have no question the article should be removed from Wikipedia, but I want it done in such a way that if the creator comes back and complains, their argument absolutely won't have any legs. —  X  S  G  08:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, just disagree that someone making a statement like that counts as a claim of notability. It's really a meaningless sentence "growing" could mean anything, he's not even saying something like "rising star". I can guarantee the prod is going to be contested and this will end up in AFD he already made a sock to try to remove the CSD. If we take every tiny claim of notability like this seriously we will have an even more crowded AFD then we do now. Ridernyc (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just wondering - what part of Mark Porter (visual artist) do you think asserts importance? Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Porter is known for creating..." Importance is an extremely low standard by design to give editors an opportunity to improve the article and demonstrate notability during the duration of a ProD or AfD. There's no harm done if the article's removal is delayed a bit on the off chance that you're wrong about their notability; if we're wrong, Wikipedia's richer for covering another subject, and if we're right, what difference does a week make? —  X  S  G  07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that diversity improves quality, but I disagree that "is known for" is an indication of importance. I am known for being a good father, but without knowing in what circles that fact is known you can't determine if I am important (or if I am even trying to assert that the subject is important) at an encyclopedic level. I understand and will consider your point, and I would like to suggest that you also consider my point (and the similar points that others have mentioned to you, including the post immediately above this) so that we can all grow from this experience. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In context, I believe it was intended as an assertion of importance. For reference, with the post immediately above this, I convinced the original author of the article to stop fighting. He in turn blanked the article and it was deleted properly under CSD:G7, which I consider to be a success story as there will be no future battle in having the article re-created once it's deleted. I consider many, many points, and ultimately hearken back to how upset I was the first time someone didn't give me or a notable subject any chance by taking little effort in slapping an A7 on an article I'd created which I couldn't just as easily remove but had to trust that I'd be afforded the time to remedy. Novice editors deserve some time to flesh out their articles. It's hard to remember what it was like when we were novices, I know... —  X  S  G  08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I always think back to the CSD terms which make it pretty clear that an article about a person that doesn't have a "credible claim of significance or importance" may be CSD material.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi XSG. Thanks for the advice, but I respectfully disagree; the article I deleted was more job application than informative article, and contained no level of WP:N assertion. I was at the time aware of the history of CSD'ing and PROD'ing (it still had your PROD tag on it when I deleted it). But regardless, I made my own assessment that it easily qualified under A7, if not also G11 (unambiguous [self-]promotion, necessitating complete rewrite to approach anything like encyclopaedic material).

Having looked at it again just now I am satisfied with my original determination to delete. At most, the article simply stated "Prashant Bhatkar is founder of Pune based Company Beam Inoftech, located at Satara Road Pune". There is no assertion of notability or importance in that statement. No claim about the significance or otherwise of the company is asserted (for all we know, Prashant is the sole proprietor, director, and employee of the company—anyone can set themselves up as a company, IT contractors do it all the time for eg). Founding such a company is not in and of itself a notable claim.

The entire remainder of the 'article' was in fact nothing more than a straight résumé, listing projects they'd been employed on, etc. It even had their phone, address and email contact details. Any one of us might put up our own CV on wikipedia also; but there'd be nothing encyclopaedic contributed in doing so. The claims put forward in the Prashant's CV were nothing that millions of other folks might not also record..

That was the full extent of the article's content. I have no insight into why the creator thought that info would be useful to wikipedia; most probably they had no such thought at all. Nothing in the material indicates it. Who knows, maybe Beam Inoftech [sic] is, or will be, a notable company, and perhaps the young Prashant is on his way to becoming the next Jamsetji Tata. But if either the company or the person ever merit an article in the future, there was nothing at all in the one that got deleted, that could conceivably be of use. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you went back to review your decision and thank you for doing so. I think the deletion process should afford novice editors the time they might need in order to establish that an article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, especially in light of the fact that we have no idea why the creator thougth the info would be useful or encyclopedic. My stance is that if the article is truly non-notable, it is easily taken care of through the ProD or AfD process, and having the article on Wikipedia for an extra week in order to give the editor an opportunity to teach us something harms nobody. I think this is why passing an A7 is by design a lower bar than meeting notability. —  X  S  G  09:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be becoming a pattern with you. Ridernyc (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Check my talk page; challenging what I see as an abuse of CSD:A7 permeating Wikipedia's culture isn't just a "pattern". I intentionally review the active CSD page to find articles where overzealous editors slap a dubious CSD:A7 on an article without giving consideration to how frustrating it can be for novice editors to turn in for the night only to wake up and find the hard work of their previous evening completely gone. Of the articles that I review, roughly one in twenty actually appear to assert importance in some way and therefore don't really qualify for an A7. I've attempted to give these editors the benefit of the doubt with a ProD process; an additional week on Wikipedia with a ProD tag does no one harm, and if the subject truly warrants an article (which happens in another small percentage of cases), everyone/Wikipedia benefits. Even when I'm wrong about interpreting a statement as an importance assertion, no real harm is done by a short delay to the deletion of an article. Do you see something concerning about this "pattern"? —  X  S  G  15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I updated many of the links to have more relevant and outside sources! It just took me a bit of time to sort through them, and I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia! Also, I apologize, I didn't figure out the talk pages until just now, which is why I missed your previous comments and did not reply. Please let me know if what I have is adequate, and if there is more needed. Thanks!

No indication or memory of when this was, so I'll just tag it here... —  X  S  G  18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear XGS,

Thanks for the note regarding my edits to the Santa Cruz page. You noted that you had reverted my edits to the Santa Cruz page because they contained contradicted a previous citation without a reference to an unbiases reference. I didn't mean to instigate a debate -- I merely wanted to update/correct the previous mis-statement regarding the trademark registrations owned for Surf City USA by the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau.

Could you tell me the best way to reference the United States Patent and Trademark Office? A search for "Surf City USA" on the USPTO site desmontrated that Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau has been granted twenty-one (21) U.S. Trademark/Service Mark registrations by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the mark SURF CITY USA. Of these registrations, twelve (12) are on the Principal Register and the remaining registrations on the Supplemental Register, providing the Bureau the exclusive right to assert its ownership rights to SURF CITY USA in numerous International Classifications. The URL that would go directly to the search results would be unwieldy, at best.

I'm trying to "get the hang" of editing Wikipedia, so I really appreciate your help and patience.

Thank so much! HBGal (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As the articles content was regarding a band it falls under

) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Coaching

Hi there; the short answer to your request is yes, certainly. You have caught me just as I was logging out to go out; I will get back to you here this evening. --

^"talk"

12:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm quite pleased. From my perspective, there's no urgency, so take your time. —  X  S  G  12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Right; I have a little more time now. I think it appropriate at this point to go to e-mail, which I will, right now, go and compose. Give me 20 minutes, then pick it up. --

^"talk"

17:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Your e-mail is not enabled. This is a requirement for admin status. While I can, if you wish, discuss things here, I would have preferred not to. But will if you choose. --

^"talk"

17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues enabling e-mail, and will have it done momentarily. —  X  S  G  18:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Completed. —  X  S  G  18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you. If your userbox is meaningful you are in California, and hence asleep. I will get back to you via e-mail with suggestions as to procedure, if my e-mail of today is OK, tomorrow evening my time.

No, I have not received any e-mail from you; I note that my last message here I left unsigned, for which I apologise. --

^"talk"

19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why you moved me from the current requests to the older requests and advise that you restore my request as it was. Thanks. --JavierMC 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was performing routine maintenance. You'll note that the top of the Admin Coaching page reads: 'Requests older than around 6 weeks ... without indication of current interest may be moved to "older requests" by any editor. If you are still interested, please append to your request a note that the request is still active and the current date, and move it back to this section in date order.' On 2009.06.25, I moved your entry which was last updated on 2009.04.28, over eight weeks before. Please follow the instructions on the page if you're still interested in coaching, and don't forget to check in every few weeks and update your entry's "last visited" field. —  X  S  G  22:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No that's quite alright. It more hassle to fix your interference than it's worth to continue to wait for a coach. I have no wish to waste 20 minutes fixing what you felt was your right. --JavierMC 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at that! The system works! I love this place! —  X  S  G  00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well, in this case I think you'd be best off heading over to

05:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally fine. I don't want there to be any sense that I question your work by bringing it up at DRV; you did the right thing, here. I only discovered that it was a misspelling when I started the merger process. —  X  S  G  05:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with notability on this individual, but if you can find some non-trivial coverage before the AFD closes and you want me to take another look, let me know.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If I haven't proven it to you by the end of the AfD (by fixing up the article), then of course I wouldn't expect you to switch sides. And if I can't provide it to myself by fixing up the article, I'll be on the delete side of things once again. We'll see what I can do. —  X  S  G  07:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)