Misplaced Pages

User talk:Edison: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:38, 12 December 2006 editSam Clark (talk | contribs)1,559 edits ref desk removal← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:00, 25 December 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,132,848 edits →The Signpost: 24 December 2024: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Welcome!==


'''"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."''' - Leo Tolstoy, 1897, quoted in"The Big Short," Michael Lewis (2010)
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]




I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{&#123;helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!&nbsp; <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


{{archive box|
see ]
● ]
Jimmy Wales: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so." quoted at talk page for ].
<br>● ] <br>●] <br>●]<br>●]<br>●]
}}




*Useful articles:
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
].
]: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."


{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 8
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = User talk:Edison/Archive %(counter)d
}}






== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
*Useful site: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/?wiki=enwiki ] 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
==Formatting==
Hi there, Edison! I noticed that you left a question at ] and apologized that your question showed up in a box. I have fixed the formatting. The "secret" is quite simple&mdash;if you insert a leading space before text, it will be enboxed. Remove the space&mdash;the box goes away too. Like this (see source for exact formatting):
''This is in a box.''
:''This is not.''
Hope this helps. Please ] if you need further assistance&mdash;I'll be only happy to provide it.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 12:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


==Thanks for help regarding System Accident==

Edison, thank you for your very commonsensical defense of my article on System Accident. It made me feel good to have a reasonable person standing up and defending it. And I really liked the part where you said you would keep it in a Deleteopedia if necessary. But, please don't get in trouble on my behalf. Although much (most!) of the criticism is overblown and inaccurate, some of it is valid. My piece did become an essay. A factually based essay, a well-written essay, but an essay none the less. I just kept adding and adding to it. I kind of felt on a roll. And I'm not always that good a writer. And I'm not always that logical, certainly not!

Feel free to use the references and theories as you see best. Perhaps my favorite is that organizations shave uncomfortable truths. Now, I don't think I'm the first person to observe that, but I'm not citing sources, so I guess it is kind of original research. Perhaps I should have kept that in the discussion section and kept the whole piece much shorter. Perhaps. But I'm not real keen on rewriting it at this point.

And I really liked where you said that the conventional approach has been to blame the last person who touches something. Oh, how true!

Take care,

]


==Your questions==
We don't normally insert notes in the text (such as in your Smith example), although if you do so, it would be better than nothing and eventually someone will fix it for you. To do the things properly, you best starting point would be ], which is a Misplaced Pages style guide that explains when and how to cite sources, and what kinds of sources are acceptable. The footnotes system is explained in detail at ]; you can use it if you like it, but there are also other acceptable citation methods. For an example of an article with footnotes (so you can see how the formatting works in practice) see ]&mdash;it's as good of an article as any. All other ] are also extensively sourced, so you can use them as examples as well. And, of course, you can add the page numbers in the footnotes if you need to&mdash;that's perfectly acceptable.

If you are really unsure about how to add and/or format the sources you used, you can always dump your side file to the article's talk page or in the article's "References" section. This way you wouldn't have to keep them locally, and if someone has a question about sources used they can always see them on the talk page.

As for the copyrights, please see ]&mdash;it's an official policy that should answer your question. If it doesn't, you can ask a question on that policy's ], so people who are more knowledgeable in these matters could answer it.

All in all, as long as you provide references in ''some'' form (any form), it is better than having no references at all. Also, do try to format your contributions, but don't bother too much about fine formatting details while you are still new around here&mdash;it's the content that matters. There are plenty of volunteers who will fix formatting for you, and you will get it all after a while. Rome wasn't built in one day :)

Lastly, if you need a place to experiment, use the communal ], or you can always create your own sandbox in your userspace (e.g., at ]).

Hopefully I was able to help. Please don't hesitate to contact me again if something is still unclear. Happy editing!&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==Footnote EVERYTHING==
''We have both edited the Skull and Bones article recently, and now the AP article on the 1918 letter has a number with a link to Common Dreams, but another listing as a reference. I am very new to Wiki editing, but I wonder if you agree that there should be a reference to what work and what page a fact comes from. If I find something in an old book which lacks an index, the reader or subsequent editor can't be expected to read through 500 pages to see where the fact is. Even worse, most articles just have some clickable links at the end with no indication of which fact is backed up by which link, On top of that the links may go dead or may change over time. So far I have kept notes offline as to what backup I have for what assertion, but that would require that I actively monitor each article I edit to jump in and defend any disputed edit. In controversial topics, that makes it likely that the truth will be edited back out. Thoughts?] 14:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)''

:I am '''incredibly big''' into footnoting things, usually I would footnote the commondreams (acutally AP) article with the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but I was lazy. For examples of some of the articles which I have wrote or contributed heavily too, see ] (43 footnotes), the ](50 footnotes), or ] (23 footnotes). I find that footnotes are the best way to avoid an edit war, especially since my views are very far left liberal and unpopular with most Americans. In an edit war I always win by out reference people.

''I am very new to Wiki editing, but I wonder if you agree that there should be a reference to what work and what page a fact comes from.'' Absolutly, in fact on any edit, notice the ] in any edit you make. Everything that we write as wikipedians should be referenced.

Please see my user page. You are welcome to add this items to your page.

I always attempt first though to verify something myself. Through google print, amazon print,and my ]/lexis nexis accout through my school.

If I can't find it there, I will add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to the sentences which are unreferenced. <nowiki>{{unref}}</nowiki> for an entire section. If people object and attempt to erase the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> {{fact}}. I will remind them about ].

I will then cut and paste the sentence/paragraph and explain on the talk page that if the sentence or paragraph is not referenced, I will erase it in one week. If no one verifies the information within a week, I erase it.

''"On top of that the links may go dead or may change over time."'' The <nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki> found on my user page and ] allows a person to add an access date. If the link is dead, cut and paste the link and go to archives.org and paste the link. If the link is not on archive.org, delete the link and add a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>.

anyway, I could write more, but this is probably more than you asked for, any questions or comments, let me know. Most wikipedians--the majority are lazy and never add references. This should be required, and I am glad that you are doing this yourself.] 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:Hey Edison, the converstaion at ] has gone pretty cold, just to let you know if no one responds to you. ] (]) 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== Citation needed ==

Just a note, instead of adding <code>Citation needed</code> to articles, add <code><nowiki>{{Citation needed}}</nowiki></code>. (using <nowiki>{{ }}</nowiki> calls upon a ]) Thanks, ] 01:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


== Henry and Lowe ==

Thank you very much for your note on Henry's article. This edit was done when I was first writing for wikipedia, and my exuberance did find me overwriting articles. There's obviously something more to Prof. Henry than his electrical work. He seemed to be a highly revered man of science with great influence around Washington. For the fact that he became very involved with Lowe prior to and during the war is of great significance, especially if he is an electrical scientist working with a gasman like Lowe. His letter to Cameron is of particular interest because he is a man of science and not just an "electrician." (I say with tongue in cheek.) He had a similar letter written to Capt Whipple of the Topographical Engineers, Lowe's first assignment, digging into the nuts and bolts of ballooning with the intent of influencing him to retain Lowe's services. He had the whole of the scientific community interested in Lowe's projects. But I am not so married to the article that I can't see the section edited. So feel free to truncate it.

By the way! Prof. Lowe was extremely proficient working around the volatile gas. Hydrogen has a rise rate of 400 feet per second, so with the envelope well over his head, he was not wafting around in a cloud of hydrogen gas where a telegraph spark might do a Hindenburg on him. He used to go up in the dark using his oxyhydrogen lamps to light his inflation procedures. That's alot of hydrogen gas, but Lowe's safety record was impeccable.

Thanks again! ] 03:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

==Moses Gerrish Farmer==
I want to somehow create links so that when one searches for "Moses Farmer" or "Moses G. Farmer" they will see this article, currently titled "Moses Gerrish Farmer." I would like to change the article title to "Moses G. Farmer" since I have seen many references to him where the middle name was not spelled out. He was not like Thomas Alva Edison or Franklin Delano Roosevelt in that sense. The man's middle name is in the title, and it was seldom used and little known, so searches for "Moses Farmer" just give articles mentioning "Moses" and/or "farmers". Likewise, a search for "Farmer, Moses" does not lead to the article. This is a general problem with article titles in Misplaced Pages.

Thanks! ] 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:I am in the process of making the changes that you requested. For future reference, if you wish to move a page, click Move at the top of the page that you wish to be moved. This will bring you to a screen where you woill enter the new name of the page and why you are omoving it. This will automatically create a redirect link on the old page to autpomatically bing you to the new page when you try to go to the old one. I am also removing the helpme from your page. Contact me if you have any more questions. --] 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:Redirects. create a ] page with the text <nowiki>#REDIRECT ]</nowiki>. Also, hit up the ] disambig and put in a reference too. -- ]] 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==Need assistance==
I created a new article, ]. But when doing TV he always used the name "Fred De Cordova". I need a search for either name to lead to the article "Frederick De Cordova" but I do not want to move or rename the article. How do I make the additional title lead to the article? Thanks] 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:You should always name the articles after the most common name that the person goes by. If he is creditted as "Frederick De Cordova" then the article should use that name. If he is creditted as "Fred De Cordova" then you can move the article to that name, and the old name will redirect to the new one. ] 19:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:As you can see, ] uses for his page, and you may want to link that name by using the {{tl|imdb-name}} template. ] 19:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::There's an easier way to avoid moving the article. Just go to ] and type <nowiki>#REDIRECT ]</nowiki>. That should fix it. ] 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
*At some point he switched from "Frederick" to "Fred", but then went back to "Frederick" for his final movie circa 1966.] 00:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

== Listcruft ==

You can find info on listcruft ]. It is a term employed quite often in the Articles for Deletion section of Misplaced Pages. In this particular case, I nominated the article because it was originally nothing more than a random list of songs. --] <sup>(])</sup> 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== One Finger Salute ==
Hey Edison, what would you think of moving that video to a separate section. It isnt a speech, and under the right section, I dont see any issue with the video itself. ] 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what the category would be, but the other videos you are referring to are all speeches. I guess I'm not too worried about it; I'll just leave it as it is. Thanks! ] 00:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::Like you say, to amend it to read "Speeches and other videos" would open up the section to videos covering anything. That would only make the situation worse. As far as a section labeled "Other Videos", that could work but the article is already fairly long. I say we just leave it as is. ] 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

== Your accusation returned ==

I wish to answer the accusation you made against me in your post on my talk page. How about the '''ordination of women'''??? This is a patent violation of the mandate and institution of Christ. It casts in doubt the sacraments dispensed in the ELCA. As to the LCMS's faithfulness, well, with our present liberal administration that is withering away. You are "holier than thou" with less reason in the posture.--] 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== We may have more common ground than you think ==

You raise important points. I wonder, though, that the ELCA concerns itself with Lutheranism. They should embrace generic Protestantism to make them more in line with the Episcopal Church. Why bother with Lutheranism anyway? Although, it does not further dialogue to declare that the ELCA is not Lutheran. I concur with your deploring the factionalism of those who think that Wisconsin and the CLC are not pure enough. As to women's ordination, those who oppose it as I do stand on the Scriptures (1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12). Just because it is not mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions does not mean that it is an adiaphoron (indifferent thing). The confessors were blessed that in their day and age they were not burdened with the error of women's ordination. Then, there is that horrible concordat that the ELCA made with the Reformed. This compromises the confessional Lutheran and biblical stance on the ]. That having been said. I think that you raise some other good points about authoritarianism. The LCMS has problems with that. It is not a bright world for Christianity in our day and age.--] 18:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==RfC Comair Flight 5191==
I just wanted to say that there has been a ]. Since you have been a contributor to the article, I encourage you to add to the debate and to contribute to the article, in the future. ] 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== SmackBot==
I am looking at the book 'Edison a Biography' referenced in the Thomas Edison article. Smackbot says the ISBN is wrong, but I am looking right at the book, and it is correct. Please turn off this demented bot, or perhaps rename it "Vandalbot" because that appears to be a better description. Thanks
] 21:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

: ] are 10 digits long, that one only has 9 digits hence the bot is flagging it. Since the date of that book predates the adoption of ISBNs, it is quite likely an SBN. An SBN can be converted to an ISBN by prefixing it with a zero. So a search like with the zero added to the front works, without the zero it doesn't. --] 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Well I can't claim to be an expert but my understanding is that ISBNs have 10 digits, SBNs had 9. If something has changed or the book has a printing error (which is certainly not unheard of) I can't say with any degree of certainty. But on a basic level the reason for quoting the ISBN is so that people can find it, if the ISBN as listed in the book is not the one under which it is listed in a search by ISBN, then it's not much use. This is I guess why they are being tagged so that we do double check them. --] 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:::According to Amazon it is 0-7033-0468-2 Looks like a typo, possibly the person filing the 1 or 2 off the impression number koncked a digit off the ISBN? Rgds, ''] ]'', 22:17 ] ] (GMT).

:Incidentally you might be better off quoting a more recent ISBN ], ] and ] all cite Edison: A Biography, 1992, Wiley, ISBN 0-471-54806-5.
:It is very unusual to find the number on the book is wrong, EdJohnston has so far found about 4, plus this one makes 5 on WP. This is out of many many thousands on WP. The use of ISBN's is debateable. They really stand out when either a book has one edition, or is old and has one hardback edition that can be obtained from libraries. (For example I once ordered and bought a book called "The book of the Dun Cow" - it wasn't what I wanted at all - had I had an ISBN, that couldn't have happened) Still there are sites that will give you all the ISBNs of a book, given one ISBN, and I suppose this might be built into other engines. And I have been trying to make sure as many ISBNs are useful as possible, especially as they will be changing soon, and we will not be able to use all the internal checks if we convert them to the new format. Regards, ''] ]'', 22:30 ] ] (GMT).

:: Pgk/Edison, the 0-07-033046-8 number that pgk found is probably the correct one. Reasons:
::# The layout is consistent with the book
::# (Most importantly) 0-07- is McGraw Hill's publisher ID
::# The checksum is correct
::
::I suspect that somewhere someone added a number on the end (as I did), and the data got "borged" - after all the purpose of ISBN searches is to enable people to find a book, so it makes sense to allow as many possible variants.
::
:: Good detective work pgk! ''] ]'', 08:40 ] ] (GMT).

== Your reply to my question about Sinusitis ==

Thanks for the quick and efficient reply to my question at the Reference Desk. I've talked to my physician about it; a few years ago I went to a specialist and they couldn't find anything wrong, except for my adnoids, which were removed. That didn't help and I was reexamined when the problem continued, but they can't really figure it out; they think it may be a bad case of hay fever that keeps leading into more and more complications. Anyway, thank you for your time! :) ] ] 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

== Run-on or sentence frag on AAR network, you have my blessing ==
Please edit, remove if you feel it now reads like a silly piece of tripe now that 9/15/2006 came and went. I didn't want to remove silly rumors before 9/15 for fear of being called a '''censor''' but I believe that it should not have been in the article in the first place. I just wanted to move the ball a little... and not offend otters editors :( ] 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Citations ==

Hi, I just noticed you experimenting with citations in the sandbox. The proper way to do them is use cite templates such as {{]}} or {{]}} in between your <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags. See ] for examples. Cheers, <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== sneaky uses ==

I think it's the first one, but I'll check to make sure. ] 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the first one.
] 00:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Hi,

In Reply to your response:

<i>Thanks for your correction to the Emmanuel Milingo article. My edit of 19:58, 1 October 2006 changed the photo caption to say he was an archbishop rather than the previous caption which said he was a priest, and my previous edit had said he was a retired archbishop rather than an ex-archbishop. But in the edit summary I left out "not" and reversed the intent of my edit.</i>

That is correct. Thanks for your thanks! ;-)

<i>I understand that Roman Catholic canon law says a sacrament cannot be revomed by excommunication, so if he ordains someone a priest or bishop, the ordination is effective, and all that the penalty of excommunication can do is prevent them from serving a parish or diocese, and similarly excommunicate anyone who receives sacraments from them.</i>

It prevents them from serving the Church and from being part of the Church, but it does not automatically excommunicate others receiving the Sacraments from them. Only those receiving episcopal ordination from these excommunicated, are excommunicated definitely. Laymen can receive their sacraments if the excommunicated are not declared "vitandus" ("to be avoided"), e.g. in case of heresies.

<i>The Roman Catholic Pope was excommunicated by the eastern church in 1054, and his successors have gotten along nicely since then, and contrariwise for the eastern church. The Pope in the late 18th century claimed that Anglican bishop ordinations were not valid because some forms were omitted, but the Anglican bishops responded that the Popes predecessors had not usede those forms either, so that would make him not a bishop either.</i>

The Anglican case is complex, but the Anglican response to ] is wholly insufficient. The ancient rites they refer to, clearly express a high priesthood, an offering priesthood, offering a sacrifice and ordaining clergy. Those references lack in the 1547 until 1979 anglican ordination rituals. Presently the question is debated, as new rites were introduced by the Anglicans and ] bishops co-consecrated with the Anglicans. But as a ROman Catholic I agree with ]'s Apostolicae Curae of course. Kind regards,] 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
The whole thing is beginning to get pathetic, but here goes... Tesla was not a Serbian-American, as "Serbian" refers to people from Serbia, regardless of whether they are Serbs, Hungarians etc. Serb-American may sound wrong to your ears, but I don't see how it's any different from Greek-American, for example. I'll change it back, and if you feel strongly about it we can continue the discussion while having your formulation as the temporary solution. --] 03:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed you ''didn't'' change it. Still recovering from the shock of someone showing a willingness to discuss something on WP being editing. --] 03:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly aware that he was born in the Military Frontier, and not in Serbia. So Serbian is not correct, and Serb is - which ''was'' my point. It ''is'' confusing, I know. --] 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Would that make him "an Austro-Hungarian-American Serb"?" Maybe you see know why I'm of the opinion that the whole thing should be shunted out of the intro? --] 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

==Re: Eisenhower==
Hello! As long as the addition is verifiable, NPOV, sourced, and adheres to our policies, of course I would have no objections. :-) If people feel that the section needs to be modified, then we can go from there, but as long as all policies are followed, go ahead and ]. Thanks for asking! ] <small>(])</small> 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

==Notability of ministers and churches==
*'''Comment'''Please note that I have started a discussion topic at ] (people) to create a standard for notability of religious leaders. Some should have articles, if, for instance they are an official of their denomination churchwide, or they started some important movement, wrote widely used hymns, or were notable in ways special to religion. They probably should not have an article if they were just a typical priest, rabbi, or mullah serving a local group. We have such standards for Porn actors and sports figures, and it would save a lot of argumentation. ] 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''Please note that I have started a discussion topic at ] to create a standard for notability of churches. I have also started a discussion for standards of notability for individual churches, We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. ] 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''The following discussion copied from WP:N is preserved here as an interim position on notability of churches:'''

===Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc===

Every day many articles are started about individual churches and every day there are AFD discussions. I do not want to see all churches included, and I do not want to see all chrch articles deleted. I would appreciate some criteria for the sake of consistency and to reduce repetitious arguing.. The first criterion people cite is size. Megachurches with thousands of members are probably noteworthy but the biggest churches are not necessarily the most encyclopedic, any more than the largest colleges are. I am looking for criteria which would allow other churches to be included, just as smaller colleges have articles Princeton University. A church might be historic Old North Church or have a place in the civil rights struggle, or be the site where gospel music was first sung, or be the place where a President of the U.S. taught Sunday School. But how does one specify how historically important it must be? It could be architecturally or artistically important (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, or with murals by Chagall). What are the criteria for such cultural importance? It might be religiously important (Here the doctrine of blah blah was first enunciated by Rev xxx in 1815, so it the birthplace of the xyz denomination). It could be a small church but still a noteworthy and notable one. How can this last categroy be delineated? Newspaper and magazine articles? Awards or recognition from the denomination or from nondenominational bodies? Distinguishing the building from the denomination, how large or important does a religious denomination have to be to merit an article?Edison 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that anything out of the ordinary would be interesting. Most churches don't have anything out of the ordinary about them. The key is for it to be reported independently by a reliable source. This means that we don't have to push our own point of view about notability - the independent sources have decided that it is notable. Stephen B Streater 08:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think any Church with a congregation of a certain size or higher, is notable. Any church that has X number of viewers, subscribers, etc.. is notable. Any church that has spent X dollars on political actions, notable. Any church who's Minister is notable, is notable. I would use similar criteria for any company, but with different numbers. Mathiastck 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This is arbitrary, and there's no reasonable way to decide what X should be. —Centrx→talk • 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful news coverage as always is the threshold, to determine whether or not we could actually write a useful article. A piece about the history of the church, it's role in the community and so on is a good start. Stuff announcing services or a wedding or whatever isn't. It's actually relatively rare that anything beyond an official church history is written by a member, and a few passing mentions are made in the paper about a new minister, a program the church offers, etc. Nothing that really makes an encyclopedia article. When there are actually real news articles being written about the church, that's a strong sign it's "notable" enough for an article. --W.marsh 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this position. What I look for before putting Churches (or pretty much anything else) up for AfD is two sources that look like they pass WP:RS and are either apparently independent of one another or are about different things. For instance, a newspaper article about the Church history and the inclusion of the Church in a book about Church architecture would be fine if you ask me. Erechtheus 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are clear references affirming notability, I'd say to merge churches to their local community article, per WP:LOCAL. --Elonka 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:These guidelines do seem quite cogent and reasonable. However, perhaps they could be made more concrete, somehow? Erechtheus's 'two sources' threshold is good. However, I would tend to limit things a bit further. For example, a couple of mentions (or even one) in books on architecture/history may definitely warrant inclusion. A 'denomination birthplace' is surely only notable if the denomination ''itself'' is notable &mdash; in other words, not 'Little Church on the Prairie is where spirit-filled Pastor Joe came up with his Redemptionist Post-Evangelical Reformed Baptist theology'. But if dealing with a modern church where the only claim to notability is size of congregation or presence in a community, then I think a little more than newspaper articles are required, surely? Pretty much ''every'' community newspaper will have something on the local church every week, and even large (city-wide) newspapers may have church-related articles that are not truly ''notable''. But what about if the 'newspaper' criterion is extended to ''nationwide'' news (in whatever country?). Similarly, size should not be a criterion ''at all'', unless it is verifiably 'the biggest' or 'the smallest' or the 'the tallest' (and even then, I loathe that tendency in modern man to obsess over such things &mdash; what about 'the most beautiful' or 'the architecturally most advanced'?).

:Edison, why not create a new policy/guideline page (like there are for books, websites, etc.) and put something up there? That way it can start being referred to in AfDs, which in turn will draw more people to the guideline to add their thoughts on the matter. There seems to be enough material, esp. if it has a nice preface and is spaced out with bullet points and things ;-) ] 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

: I agree with The Crying Orc. Now that church deletions seem to be a hot topic, I think a policy discussion would be a great idea. I don't want to get into a long discussion here, if we are goign to have a policy page, save to say that I agree with the assertion that size should be irrelevant, except in exceptional cases (being the largest church in a country may confer notability, for example). I'd lean towards national rather than local media coverage being a criterion for notability too. That's all I've got to say, as i do think we need to have a decited page in Misplaced Pages space to discuss this. church is important to many people, and the tendency to think that "important to me" equals "should be in wikipedia" is widespread. There will alwys be people wishing to add their church to wikipedia, just as there are people who want their school included. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm starting on a first draft in my user space. You can find the article ] if you'd like to contribute. Once it looks halfway presentable, I shall move it to Misplaced Pages:Notability space (and paste this discussion into the talk page) One question immediately presents itself: should this be churches or all places of worship? ] <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I've decide to move it to Misplaced Pages space already ] ] <sup>]</sup> 11:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

==Pastor Don==

Hey Edision!!!! This is in reply to the talk.... What I got was an article from my friend which he got from a magzine......probably some personal sites too can be found as you had put it on. Will that won't be enough. And one more thing can we update our own sites( personal)???thanks for your care...God bless you....]

Edison I do have the article in a jpg format if you want I can send you the link...... it is in this link what I found some of his life and I also got a CD recently where people share about his life. So I thinking since there is a link to this article I went ahead and created. To be honest I have never even seen him in person, all I know is that he was different......I'am from India where as he is in USA...think about it how can I have a connetion with???? Anyways here is the link here you have even his snaps too when I tried uploading the same snap what I had there was some issue in right kind of tag...Thanks a lot Bro...]

== Afrika paprika ==

I'm afraid that you ''cannot'' convince him. He strongly belives that the Serbo-Croatian languages have two dialects "Serbian" and "Croatian" - whereas one should (I even suggest to you) check out ], he/she will see (East Herzegovinian, Zeta-Kosovar, etc..); the political linguistical map has absolutly nothing to do with linguistics, but strictly with politics and nationalism. I for instance, speak the ''East-Herzegovinian'' language. --] 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I do not "believe", I know. Refer to the "Serbo-Croat language" page and Croatian and Serbian languages pages and you will see that everything I talk is true. "Serbo-Croatian" is a diasystem...not a language. ] 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

----------
In my understanding Croatian and Serbian languages are Slav. When the Croats and Serbs came to the Balkan region they picked up this local Slav language and a new Religion. Like anywhere people speak slang..dialect...look at the English speaking American, Australian and Kiwi differences..do Americans say G'Day Mate?
The correct term would be Serbo-Croatian like English is for America etc...Does anyone say i speak American?
In reality neither side likes the united language so they call it two different languages.
Bit silly as i can speak Croatian and perfectly understand Serbian (90% of it).
I also speak English but can only understand a Scotish or Irish guy at 80% at best.
] 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

== Poor Nathan ==

Thanks for telling me about Nathan.
Sure was one special man.
I WISH he was Croatian hahaha
] 23:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
PS Croatian people have been around a long time, sad thing is many are called eg. Italian (Polo) and eg Austrian(Haydn). Once the the media knows them as eg Italian it is very hard to prove otherwise, no matter how much proof you come up with. A real shame when it's so obvious - eg. my granfather was called Austrian but in fact he was Croatian...see what i mean ...little uneducated mistakes by people who don't know much about that part of the world.
Also Croatia was ruled by Venice and by Austria Hungary over time etc...the people were called Venetian and Austrian in record books.- Good thing is that Polo and Haydn did leave some information which can be used to prove Croatian origin eg in Sibenik and Korcula for Polo
and an interesting Croatian surname in Austraia Hajdin. When the puzzle fits it might be time to change history.
God Speed
] 23:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

==K.A.Paul==

Hi Edison I did do some edits like adding some info into it. I also did create one portion for Criticism but I deleted it because I did not want to do it without your permission. I do know some of his details. I can even give you more details if you give me some time cause I know people who work in his organization. Probably I can get it from them. He comes from a state in India known as Andhra Pradesh. ]


Yes infact he is from Andhra which means he is a from that languge speaking state. Listen I have friend who's uncle was working with him due to some problem he left that organization critics say that his organization is not a good one. ....some say its a ]...lets see if you give me permission I can go ahead and create and as well as edit a portion only for Criticism....wat do you say...thanks. ]

Edision I did get it finally the details of his birth and the place too. If you can just have a look and edit it in the way it should be....I hope I was of some help to you. Thanks for allowing me to join this project.] rencin24 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Edison, just in case if you did not notice it...that I have put the link at the bottom under '''External Links'''. ] rencin24 06:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] violation at ] ==

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at ]. Misplaced Pages has a policy against ]. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be ] from editing by admins or ] by the ]. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please ] appropriately. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3-n --> --] 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:A statement about Misplaced Pages policy, as I made in support of my vote, cannot be reasonably taken as a personal attack, so it was inappropriate for the nominator to leave a warning on my talk page.

:User Aaron, who placed the warning here, had said in his nomination "I originally tagged this as a db-bio after noticing that some of the article content (which I have since removed) was intentionally misleading in an attempt to give the subject some desperately needed notability oomph. " Thus he himself attacked other editors for "intentionally misleading" because of their "desperation."

:My comment which garnered the warning was:

::"Keep- Notable as national radio show host. Disagreeing with the political position of a radio show is not grounds for deletion and protection from recreation of an article. Edison 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"

:] 21:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::Edison - if I were in Aaron's shoes, I wouldn't have posted the warning; your comment was fairly polite. Nevertheless, I think you should review it. You said: ''Disagreeing with the political position of a radio show is not grounds for deletion and protection from recreation of an article.'' Or, if I'm reading this correctly, you said ''Aaron, I think you're making this nomination because of your political opinions, and you shouldn't do that.'' Such statements, even if 100% true, can start fights, because they can easily be taken as a personal attack.

:: It's certainly frustrating to see an editor do something for what seems improper reasons, and then not say something about it, yourself. The reason NOT to say something (other than ] - you could be wrong) is that shifting the discussion to motives can easily derail it. Or, to put it differently: it's better to trust the process, and to assume that rational arguments will suffice if in fact you're on the correct side of the debate. In my experience, one (usually) doesn't need to (try to) damage the credibility of those on the other side in order to get the outcome to be a reasoned one.

:: As far as removing this warning - I wouldn't, since it doesn't seem clearcut vandalism or the work of someone who is clearly deranged (you may disagree). I do note, however, that there is no wikipedia policy that definitively bans removing warnings, or specifies penalties. (Which isn't to say that there aren't a lot of administrators who take umbrage at someone - usually someone warned about vandalism or sock puppetry or other seriously problematical behavior - if they remove a warning posted by that admin.)

:: Finally, another option is to archive this section, if you'd prefer not staring at it for the next few months. ] | ] 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Unfortunately, I know nothing about it either; I was just adding diacritics to a couple of Polish words. ] 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== Re: ] ==

A-''ha''. I thought she seemed too notable for speedy. Excellent call. ] 21:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== Capacitance VS. Voltage ==

What's better for a capacitor if I want to create a coilgun? High Capacitance or High Voltage? Thanks. ] 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First, CAUTION! Don't work with electricity or stored energy devices, or projectile devices unless you are qualified to do so, and understand and observe all applicable safety rules and precautions and laws. Large amounts of stored energy in any form is inherently dangerous. Electricity from capacitors can cause burns, or even electrocution. Caps can explode if reverse polarized, overcharged subject to excess high voltage, or discharged at too high a rate. High speed projectiles are as dangerous as a bullet. Even the energy in a photoflash can be lethal, since it is at a high voltage (way higher than the battery powering the device) and of sufficinet quantity to stop your heart, just as the "paddles" on ER shows are used to stop or defibrillate hearts.

I would expect a goal would be to achieve the rapid transfer of a large amount of energy from the caps to the coils. Energy of projectile=1/2* m* (v squared) in Joules = integral of current timesvoltage from stored energy, allowing for losses and efficiency. Not all caps are built for high current discharge and they all certainly have voltage limits which must be observed with a large safety factor. From ] Energy stored = 1/2* capacitance*(voltage squared). Twice the capacitance at the same voltage stores twice the energy. It would cost about twice as much, since two caps in parallel doubles the capacitance. Twice the voltage in the same capacitance stores 4 times the energy. But it is more expensive to buy a higher voltage capacitor of the same Farad rating. If a device needs a certain amount of energy delivered in a given (short) time, you can price out the higher cost of better insulation for high voltage and the price of the high voltage capacitors, versus the high cost of more low voltage capacitors. Caps in series to get a higher voltage rating doesn't work well because the voltage divides unevenly according to the internal dc resistance of the caps. It's an engineering exercise. I'm not sure how you would easily measure the internal resistance of a cap to see its max discharge rate, or where the allowable safe discharge rate is specified. I doubt that caps made for general purposes like electronics or motor starting or power factor correction would work well. Again be cautious.] 22:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the help. Don't worry, I'm not going to try and use very high voltage, or anything like that. I was just curious. Maybe I could wait until I'm (a lot) older and I could try to get qualifications, although by then stuff like coilguns will probably be outdated. P.S. I tried to build one with a coil of wire and a 9 volt battery and it only made a screw go about 3 inches so it would probably take a lot more to do anything, and I am just an amateur so I probably can't make anything as complicated as a coilgun yet. ] 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I added some references to ] to help establish notability. Please see ] --] (] | ] 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Blood Alchohol ==

A little while back you stated that endogenous ethanol inebriation had "the same credibility as girls who get pregnant from a swimming pool." in this discussion. I thought you might be interested in this article, which lays out the etiology in lay speak. ] 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== CU article in my namespace ==
Left you a reply there. Basically, go for it. ] 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for WP:RPP ==

Thanks for requesting semi-protection on Thomas Edison. I need to do that more often when warranted. ] 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== bogus 3rr warnings ==
Please cease from issuing 3RR warnings to members of the ] who are executing the consensus of the patrol in removing defamatory material. Such edits are exempt from 3RR, and the reinsertion of such defamatory material is a blockable offence, per ] on both issues. ] 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:I was going to stay out of this one, but this is a bit much. An agreement between a couple self-appointed members of the BLP does not mean that this so-called consensus applies across all of Misplaced Pages nor are they exempt from a 3RR violation block for removing properly sourced material. Note that the text of the 3RR policy page states: "However, it can be easy to confuse removing potentially libellous material with an edit war over neutrality issues, which are conentious edits. Err on the side of caution: do not repeatedly remove material you consider defamatory unless it is blatant, and seek intervention from others early at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard." While the edit war over this issue was unfortunate, Tbeatty has done the right thing by stopping at three reverts. Edison has acted properly and does not deserve this warning dervived from an incorrect interpretation of policy. ] 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::Gam, please STFU and read before you pipe in. I am referring to this specific information on this specific article. As much as you may deny it, there IS consensus within the BLPP (which you have yet to officially volunteer for), that this particular information violates the spirit of WP:BLP, and should not be in the article. TBeatty's edits were marked "per BLP" in the edit summaries. (And since there was no 4th edit, why would any kind of warning be needed? It's not like Tbeatty is unaware of 3RR policy.) If you don't like how those of us who have chosen to volunteer enforce WP:BLP, then start an RfC, or take some other resolutive action. I'm getting tired of being contradicted by you. If you want to be helpful, go bother Joegoodfriend, who has inserted this libellous material no less than five times today. - ] 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Because I don't add my name to a list and get a little userbox badge, I can't participate in BLP issues? What's the point of that aside? I'm sorry I contradicted you, but adding your name to a BLP list does not give BLP members blanket 3RR immunity, and there is no consensus that this violated BLP as there are numerous editors who disagree and feel that the incusion of a properly sourced news story is not a BLP violation. I would not have said anything had you not given this user incorrect policy information. ] 17:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Many thanks for your note. I imagine that Crockspot, et al., don't mean to suggest that participants in the ] are specially exempt from ], but, instead, that any editor acting, pursuant to ] to remove inappropriate content, need not to comport his editing with 3RR, which suggestion is codified at ]. I am concerned, though, that those who partake frequently of ''living people patrol'' seem to intimate that their understandings of BLP are more sound that those of others (which concern I when first the propriety of LPP was discussed), and I think your judgments vis-à-vis LPP to be cogent and wholly correct. Should the edit war continue, a content ] might well be appropriate, as might, at some point, a user conduct RfC. In the meanwhile, perhaps ]. Btw, your sectional retitling was well done; I suggested such retitling in my talk page note (I wasn't particularly sure for what title a consensus might exist), but you addressed the problem moments before. Good on ya! ] 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Welcome to BLPP ==
I see that you signed up, and if you are truly sincere, I welcome you, as we really need the help. With the elections coming up, we've been getting hammered heavily with partisan crap on just about every candidate's biography. I would recommend reading ], ] (which is about to be scrapped and replaced by ], so read that too), and put ] on your watchlist. There is a tool on the ] page that shows you recent changes to articles in the "Living people" category. (Lots of other suggestions at that page too.) However, there are tons of living bios that do not have the category added, so keep an eye out when browsing for bios that are missing the category, and add it, so that it gets picked up by the tool. I find several bios every day that are not categorized, just by clicking on "random article". <nowiki>{{WPBiography|living=yes}}</nowiki> should also be added to the top of the talk page of these articles. My own personal philosophy on doing this work is to learn the policies inside and out, edit with confidence, and project an air of authority. If you show weakness, you'll get eaten alive. (If you're uncertain about something, figure it out and be certain before you jump into the middle of fighting dogs.) Don't be afraid to ask for help from other volunteers if you get cornered and hammered by people who don't appreciate the need for what we are doing. Some people want Misplaced Pages to be anarchy, and will fight you tooth and nail all the way. Good luck, and again, welcome. - ] 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


==Image: K A Paul==

Hi Edison, I was thinking whether you could upload an image for Mr. K A Paul. If you could do it then it would be nice. Would really give an highlight to the article. Think about it and if you feel so then you can go ahead.]

== ] ==
Hi - thanks for the question. My view is (a) I haven't changed my mind from the AfD, and (b) I try to pick my fights (spend time where I think I can do the most good), and the Scarborough article isn't where I'm going to invest any energy. I don't think I would contribute anything useful unless I spent a lot of time analyzing people's positions, looking for common ground, and quite possibly I'd find no common ground, or be drowned out in the partisan fighting even if I did. It's easy to comment in an AfD vote and exit (or observe), with one's opinion preserved for others to view; in an edit war, you either wade in or you're unlikely to make a difference. (I believe the classic case here is editing the ] article - there are folks who watch that article for changes who care way, way more about every phrase in it than you and I ever will about most major matters in life, probably.)

If there were some major issue at stake (for example, I have strong feelings about deleting articles on House of Representative candidates who are in competitive races but strictly speaking fail current notability criteria), I might act differently. But the reality (as I see it) is that as long as there are links in the Scarborough article to sources about the staffer's death, it doesn't really make that much difference if her name is mentioned, or whether it's a whole paragraph or just a sentence or two. ] | ] 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


==Walter Andrew Stephenson==

Please see . Thank you. ] 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I added references from the AfD to the article. Those are some flimsy references. I am partly regretting changing my mind to a '''keep'''. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

:Thanks for helping me at the humanities reference desk. I asked the S.M.O.M. question, and your help, as well as that of the others, was appreciated. Thank you! | ] <font color="MidnightBlue">]</font> 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

==Civil War==
Hi, Edison. You don't tell us where you're from, and I'm curious about which "Civil War" you're interested in. Cheers ] 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== re: ] ==

The sections were removed because they ] an online community web site "FaithfulDemocrats.com", which is generally not used as a ]-- even if it is the author writing about herself. Further, in biographies about individuals, neither ethnicity nor religion are appropriate for emphasis, unless they are specifically relevant to the subject's notability. See: ]. In this case, Ms. Austin is not notable for being an Episcopalian; she's notable for being a writer. Similarly, apart from perhaps ] and ], you won't find religious affiliations listed for other biographies of ]. Finally, not all edits require use of talk pages. Remember, editors ] to have any article to which they've contributed to be edited mercilessly. Regards, --<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

*Again, her being an Episcopalian has no bearing on her notability; if that's the basis of the article, I would likely consider it a candidate for ].--<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continued at ]--<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
*Edison, thank you for your helpful comments on my talk page re my recommendation to delete Elizabeth Austin's article. I've got lots to learn :-) ] 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== Elizabeth Austin (and Heresy) ==

Thanks for your comment. I guess that the biggest problem that I have with the comment is that it's not clear she was speaking humorously, it actually makes her sound rather dour and stern. Of course, if I knew what to do with the comment, I'd have done it myself already! Not being familiar with her work, I'm somewhat hesitant to go carving that part of the article apart.

Cheers,

] 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

==Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia ==
{&#123;helpme}}The Misplaced Pages article for the "Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia" was apparently speedily deleted in the last day or so. Does anyone know where I can find discussion related to that deletion, or where I can obtain a copy of the deleted article? Thanks. ] 07:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Edison, thanks for asking. The article was a sub-stub consisting only of the rather tautological statement "The '''Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia''' (LTSP) is a ] ] in in ]", plus an external link to its website . Somebody had placed a (perhaps not strictly necessary, but procedurally correct) deletion tag on it for "failing to claim notability", whereupon the creator flew into a rage and went on a personal-attacks rampage. By the time I came to the article, I saw no other way of cleaning up but to block him and delete the article. He later went on that ] spree of creating mock AfD's for all the other seminaries, vandalised various people's userpages, etc. (see {{User|2similar}}.
:Well, upshot of this long account is, you are ''of course'' more than welcome to create a proper article, it just needs to contain a tiny little bit more substance. The same would of course have applied to the original creator, had he only listened to what people were telling him... ] ] 09:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Was going to reply, but Future Perfect summed up the whole mess pretty well. I've certainly nothing against the article, but during newpage patrol one runs across all sorts of non-notable/blank/etc. etc. articles. (By the way, I was the one that placed the "not strictly necessary" tag. :) ) I offered multiple times to help the old author write up the article with sources and the like, and was...shall we say, not taken up on that. It's looking very good now! ] 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

There's a very good reason it's short; I deleted most of the article's text last night because of copyvio problems. It can easily be reconstructed, using the individual's web page a source (which is where the copyvio was from). -- ] 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==Reconsider vote for ]==
I would like to ask you to reconsider your ] for ]. With a little bit of research, it is clear that the school is indeed notable, and the additional information has been added to the article with material from the school's web site and several references from '']'', India's main national newspaper. With its management and operation by the ], the school has a unique science program that allows students to learn from India's top scientists, and to have heard from several recent ] laureates. The school competes in, and has won, at the top levels of sport in the state. I strongly suggest that all those who previously voted to Delete should re-read the article and reconsider their vote. ] 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
Thanks for the sources. I moved them to the talk page. It would be great if we could integrate them as sources into the article. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*There is no hard and fast rule about references and inline cites. I think it made the article look sloppy, and right now that's not what is needed. I will make a note about this. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

==Social Security Death Index==

I noticed you mentioned in the AfD for Robert Craun that you based his non-notability (and likely non-existence) partly on the fact that he wasn't listed in the SSDI. I agree with you about Craun, but the SSDI isn't perfect enough to rely upon. For one thing, if a family member is still getting benefits from Social Security in respect of the deceased, the deceased won't show up on the index. 38 years is a long time for a widow to claim benefits but not unrealistically so. Also, more individuals (especially military) have fallen through the cracks with respect to the SSDI than most of us would like to think. JFK Jr. and Jackie Kennedy, for instance, aren't in the SSDI. (All presidents and first ladies, with the exception of Jackie Kennedy, who have died since 1965 are in the SSDI, so I'm not sure that it's a privacy matter.) --] 20:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


==Your comment on ]==

Thanks for your comment on ]! I am actively trying to reach a rough consensus on this article, and I need your help! This is the second time the article has been nominated and the first time no consensus was reached because of lack of debate. If you could comment it would be greatly appreciated. :) ] 20:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

== Your edits on ] ==

Could you maybe leave the message about signing posts on their userpages? It's cluttering up the reference desk, and having it in every section is a bit excessive. Thanks. --]&nbsp;(]) 06:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

== AfD Notification on College Tonight ==
Hi there. In an earlier AfD vote on the article ] you voted '''Delete'''. This is a notification that due to procedural issues, the article is ]. Note, this is not a request to vote Delete again (though I'd personally prefer to see it gone!), just a notification that re-vote is taking place. Thanks! --] 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Welcome!!! ==

<div style="padding: 5px; background: #EEFFEE; border: 2px solid #CCFFCC;">
]
Welcome, Edison, to ]! As you might know, all the ] share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the ], the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the ] or you may be interested in some of our ]. A quite important program is ], which seeks to support ] from their Misplaced Pages events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a ] of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at ].

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our ] ] by ] or ]. Consider introducing yourself at the ]! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an ]. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Misplaced Pages a better place to work!

<div align=right>''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)</div>
</div> </div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== ] of ] ==
== Re: Golf Mill Shopping Centre ==
]

I've responded to your concerns about one of my deletions at my ]. Thanks. ] 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've restored the page now, to a user subpage at ]. I will not be opposed to recreation if some proof of notability is given, but in its current form, I regret I will not be undeleting the article back to mainspace as of yet. Thanks, and I hope the process did not inconvenience you too much. ] 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== Elonka's Edits ==

Hello - I just wanted to clarify why I support sanctions against Elonka's deletion nominations. I would not normally support this sort of thing and I would always assume good faith. However, I've consistently seen her nominate or suggest articles for deletion simply because they have no references - that's not usually a reason for immediate deletion unless it's blatant spam - she has suggested, for example, quite a few railway stations for deletion simply because, she says, "I think they aren't notable". The same seems to be happening with the shopping centres. If Elonka's assertions were true, then half of Misplaced Pages's articles would have to be deleted - but all some of them need is a small check to make sure that they are notable. I'm happy for her to delete the truly non-notable shopping centres, and there are quite a few of them, but I would prefer that she did the research to make sure it was truly not notable, or slapped a references tag on the article and left it for a couple of months. To simply ask for speedy deletion and then an AfD is not the way to do things. ] 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hey there. The references section has been added to this article. When I'm typing up these articles, I will tend to forget a section here or there. All the Texas highway articles should have a link to the TXDOT database, which shows the official designations. If you have any other questions, or notice any Texas articles missing references, let us know. Thanks! ] 04:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, I have vastly improved the article ] to address the concerns of you and others. The ghits should now include the expression "absent|missing referent|antecedent". I will include redirects for these variations if needed upon closure of AfD. Please consider changing your vote to KEEP. Thanks for your comments! I feel the article is much stronger now, and I have learned much in this process both about the concept and WP in general. --] 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Regarding your edits to the "God" subheading... please see ]. PS Thanks for the switch to Keep!!! --] 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

==Farewell==
Hey all, Its really a great joy for me to be a part of you all and to work with you all. Well I really do not know what to say. I was almost in tears when I got to know ]. A big thanks to all of my friends. I am gonna miss you. I really hope you go and see.]

== Happy Thanksgiving! ==

{{AndonicO's version of Randfan's Happy Thanksgiving template}}

== Mega Society ==

I have summarized my arguments for including an article on the Mega Society in Misplaced Pages here:

]

==Response on shopping centers==
] is a centralized discussion on corporations in general. If there were a shopping center out there which were ''not'' a corporate interest, I'd be tremendously surprised-so while it doesn't cover shopping centers in specific (any more than it covers a given McDonald's in specific), it does cover them in general. ] 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Please note that I have just nominated ] for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination ]. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. ] 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

==AfD==
Greetings. You may be interested in ], which I have just listed. I would appreciate your input. --] 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::I have just suggested on that page that you add some references to other's comments on his work, and, by all means, add a main article for the GRW theory, preferably written so non-physics types can understand. ;).] 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

== Clarification of ref desk comment ==

''"You have no free speech rights here?" Be prepared to be assimilated into the Wiki. Resistance is futile. Edison 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)''
:Um... Take a look at ]. There is no right to unregulated free speech on Misplaced Pages. We have a lot of free speech, because it's good for the encyclopedia. However, when people want to post things on inappropriate pages, those contributions can be (and are) removed&mdash;which is what that conversation on the ref desk talk page was about. If you have further concerns, feel free to contact me. -- ] 16:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages is not censored to avoid objectionable content. However, its talk pages may certainly have items removed in order that they serve their intended purpose; see ], the point entitled "Keep on topic," which concludes: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." -- ] 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::I just re-read your comment on my talk page, and I'm still trying to make sense of it. Of course, Misplaced Pages has room for discussion of differing views on issues relevant to building the encyclopedia&mdash;we have lots and lots of it, and it's how we get work done! Nobody is required to have "NPOV views," though&mdash;we only have to write NPOV articles! ;-) So I guess I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.. -- ] 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, sure; we're in complete agreement on the dangers of removing comments from talk pages&mdash;and the care, discretion, and thought that are therefore required before doing it. You may rest assured that while editing I always try to do what's right in terms of the goals and policies of Misplaced Pages, regardless of my personal feelings on any issue. -- ] 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


==New proposal for shopping mall notability guidelines==
I followed your advice and submitted a guideline proposal, ], based on your suggestion. I thought you might be interested. As you told me, having a separate standard will hopefully be of great service. Please feel free to alter, modify, comment or however you feel appropriate. Thanks a lot.--] 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Block needed ==

Whoooops, I thought I already had. Thanks for reminding me, that's taken care of. ] 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProject on malls ==
On the talk page for ], ] suggested starting a WikiProject for malls that may help in getting the highest quality articles on individual malls written, approved and kept. Does this sound like a good idea?--] 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Masts for deletion ==

Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to ], which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, ] 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== "the Civil War" ==

Which one is it that you're interested in? The American one? --] 10:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Comment requested on ]'s one week block ==

I, and ], and others, feel that the action of ] in blocking ] for a week was unwarranted and excessive: . We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. ] 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== Rules for deletion ==
<blockquote>'''Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Tagged as not notable for 12 years.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. ] 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
==Cleanup tags==
Hi, best not to subst these. See ] for more details. Regards, ''] ]'', 11:38 ] ] (GMT).


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
== Point Taken ==


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
I'll basically reproduce here the response I sent off to THB reagrding my remarks on the RefDesk, as you both seem to be making essentially the same valid point:


] from the past month (November 2024).
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I fully agree that the RefDesk was not the proper forum for the comments I directed towards Clio, and I apologize for that. I hope, though, that my enormous respect for Misplaced Pages generally comes through in my posts. I do my best to answer questions with as much accuracy and civility as I'm capable of. Yet, in my defense, it's not the obnoxious and condescending nature of Clio's posts that are my main concern. Yes, it can be incredibly irritating, but, and I hope you understand my sincerity in saying this, it's the quality and integrity of the RefDesk itself that is my greatest concern.


]
People come to the RefDesk with questions, and deserve accurate and valid responses. Unfortunately, Clio's responses, though very ably disguised as being authoritative, are far more often than not no more than utter fiction. Yes, we all, yours truly included, make our share of factual errors. But these errors are unintentional, and we all regret when we make them. Yet I've come to realize that for reasons I cannot comprehend, many of Clio's posts almost seem to display some sort of pathological intent to mislead. Worst of all, she happens to possess unusually impressive skills in writing and articulation. In my opinion, these two factors put together have the potential to do a great disservice to both the questioners, as well as the integrity of the RefDesk, and Misplaced Pages in general. This type of thing simply cannot be tolerated, if the RefDesk and Misplaced Pages are to maintain the reputation of having the highest of standards.


] '''Administrator changes'''
Once again, I apologize for my lapse in judgement and breach of RefDesk decorum. I only hope that you understand though, that in doing so, I was doing what I felt had to be done, though admittedly not in the proper forum. I'll post a copy of the preceding at the RefDesk talk page as well.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
Thanks for your comments, they were well received.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
] 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
::Hello, Edison. You will find a concluding statement from me on this wretched business in the RD talk page under the relevant heading. Thank you for maintaining a dispassionate view in the matter, and for pointing out things to which others have been blind. Best wishes. ] 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Rules for Ref Desk opinions ? ==
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions:
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
] ? ] 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
== Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ? ==
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: ] ? ] 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== Humanities desk == == Nino Mangione ==


Hello! I saw your edit on ], and was hoping you could please point me to the talk page discussion on ] that led you to remove the personal life section from the page? Just want to make sure I know what the consensus is on mentioning the "person of interest" by name and his personal relations, and when I could re-add the content to Nino's page. Thanks! ] (]) 02:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Edison.


:Sorry, my comment on that talk page did not post. I have gotten it added now in the section "Man being questioned in Pennsylvania found w/ gun, silencer, and fake New Jersey ID." ] (]) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I certainly apologise if I've upset you. Never my intention to do that to anyone, let alone such a diligent Wikipidean. I'll explain my rationale, which might mollify you somewhat, though it's not an attempt to diminish the fact that I'm sorry for causing affront.


== ''The Signpost'': 12 December 2024 ==
I posted there, as I felt that you'd taken the responses down a single track that was unhelpful to the questioner, by implying that a photo would be no help. However, perhaps I could have worded things better, or, as you say, posted to your talk page.


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-12}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 17, manually published--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 21:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </div></div>
Best, ] 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1262352523 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
== ref desk removal ==


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
No problem - I think we're all a bit on edge at the moment. Cheers, ] 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->

Latest revision as of 00:00, 25 December 2024

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." - Leo Tolstoy, 1897, quoted in"The Big Short," Michael Lewis (2010)



Archives

● Archive 1: 8 May 2006-31 Dec 2006
● Archive 2: 1 Jan 2007-6 June 2008
●Archive 3: 6 Jun 2008-30 Oct 2009
●Archive 4: 22 Oct 2009-22 Nov 2011
●Archive 5: 23 Nov 2011-15 April 2015
●Archive 6: 16 April 2015-Present


This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.



ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tulu'i Islam

Notice

The article Tulu'i Islam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Tagged as not notable for 12 years.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Nino Mangione

Hello! I saw your edit on Nino Mangione, and was hoping you could please point me to the talk page discussion on Killing of Brian Thompson that led you to remove the personal life section from the page? Just want to make sure I know what the consensus is on mentioning the "person of interest" by name and his personal relations, and when I could re-add the content to Nino's page. Thanks! Y2hyaXM (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment on that talk page did not post. I have gotten it added now in the section "Man being questioned in Pennsylvania found w/ gun, silencer, and fake New Jersey ID." Edison (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)