This is an archive of past discussions with User:RayAYang. 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.
Okay, if you say so :-) I agree though; dictionary would be better for 'yikes' rather than encyclopedia. --Supriya06:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ivan Sirakov
I think that the prod on Ivan Sirakov should be removed as Bronze place in the JWOC is notable, it is like a footballer representing their country at under 18 level. I have also made some comments on the Talkpage about my objectons . ARBAY (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Next steps after addressing your concerns?
Hello. I've addressed your concerns regarding notability for a recently-posted article. (You can find a link to the article on my Talk page). The rules apparently prohibit the original author from removing a "Speedy Deletion" flag, so what happens now? Do you remove flags for such articles (assuming they no longer meet the criteria for speedy deletion), or do I wait for another editor to stumble onto the article and hope that he/she takes interest and removes the flag? Or do I remove the flag? Mermecolion (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. For future reference, if an article you're writing gets speedied, you can ask anybody (except yourself) to remove the tag for you. It would also help if you wrote the article in a sandbox instead of building it incrementally -- that would avoid this whole business :) RayAYang (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
in the elegance and simplicity section, we have several examples that use the distance to the nearest pole as the radius of convergence. I'm actually pretty sure that works, it certainly works in the examples because the radius comes out the same using other methods. The concern I have is:How do we know (and explain succinctly if poss) there isn't a singular point of a different type still closer to the origin(or wherever it's expanded around)? I think the distance to the pole has only been shown to be an upper bound for the radius. By "a singular point of a different type" I'm talking about stuff like on the discussion page, where I quoted Konrad Knopp. Another way of saying it is yeah, there will be a singular point on the circle of convergence, but how do we know the circle of convergence goes thru a given singular point? I bet it's true but we should say why, if does turn out to be true. Regards, Rich (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I will think it over, and respond later on the talk page for this article, where you seem to have mentioned the same subject. Have to review my complex analysis in the meantime ;-) Best, RayAYang (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the article, if the original creator of the page blanks their work, it can be considered as a deletion request. Therefore, it met Speedy Deletion guidelines. After your edit, the author blanked it again. Just wanted to tell you that. Cheers.--LAAFan21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I reported the IP address that had vandalized my page with crude words and the page came up for me to add my report. That is what I created and was not creating an "article" about the guy.Atlantabravz (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It might not have been your intention, and I don't know what you were using, but I'm patrolling new articles right now, and that's what came up. Best, RayAYang (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Your comment
Hi there. You just reverted an edit I made, saying that you weren't sure why I had 'removed' your comment, but I only moved it to the talk page, where the discussion has already started. I noted this in my edit but, given that you reverted it, I assume that you did not see that. – SJL03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I see. You seem to be working under a misapprehension. Articles for deletion are discussed on the project page itself, not the talk page -- this is different from how it works in the article namespace. You should copy your remarks over to the main project page if you want them considered. Best, RayAYang (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you some questions about this {{prod}} placement.
[1]
First, isn't your {{prod}} based on a fringe interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT? Isn't BLP1E intended to address articles about individuals who appeared in the press exactly once? Examples would be tragic victims who have nothing else to distinguish them from their role in a well-understood event.
Counter-examples would be individuals like Richard Jewell. He is known for his role in the 1996 Atlanta bombing -- which was not a well-understood event -- which resulted in him being mentioned in the press, over and over again -- new press mentions, with dribbles, or floods, of new information.
Prescott Prince is more like Richard Jewell than he is of a victim in a well-understood event.
[2]
The deletion policies and guidelines are, I believe, crystal clear on a point you seem to have over-looked. Those considering making a nomination for deletion are supposed to base their decision on the merits for covering the topic of the article, not on the current state of the article.
[3]
Can I assume that you were responsible enough to review the references I spent considerable time rounding up?
You did see that each reference covered a separate interview or press conference?
You did see that each reference contained new quotes -- covered Prince's reaction to new events?
[4]
You suggested the material in this article should be merged into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Note: The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed article is already very long, and likely to grow much longer.
Did you make this suggestion because you regard yourself as a "mergist"?
I find myself very frustrated with the wikipedia's mergists, who seem unwilling to discuss the pros and cons of mergism and its alternate design philosophies. To be very frank it strikes me as completely counter to the wikipedia's commitment to consensus decision making to act as if the debate was over and mergism had won.
In particular, it strikes me as completely counter to the wikipedia's commitment to consensus decision making to nominate articles for deletion as if deletionists had won over the proponents of alternate design philosophies.
If that was your intention, or you didn't realize that was what you were doing, I'd like to admonish you.
Geo, your discussion of the article's merits belong on the article's talk page, not here. Your suggestion that I am following a "fringe" interpretation of the rules can only be checked in the testing, and your suggestion that I should not bring up an idea without being absolutely sure, a priori, of universal approval is flawed in its understanding of the process of consensus. Consensus is only reached after all who are interested and willing hash out their positions.
My interpretation is that ONEEVENT addresses people notable for only one event, which includes (per a recent discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons page), people who receive extended mention in the context of being political candidates over a several month period. It is certainly a broader definition than people who receive a solitary news mention -- any murderer usually gets more than one, but the rule is, to my lights, certainly intended to keep every murderer from getting an article.
There does seem to be a discussion of when somebody receives sufficient extended coverage that they become notable in their own right, wholly separated from the event. Richard Jewell's case, like Stephen Hatfill's or Wen Ho Lee's, have become notable political symbols in their own right. Mr Prince certainly has not -- I viewed your sourcing as indicative of human interest articles, little more. You could certainly debate that before a wider audience.
If the consensus is that, say, a recently appointed lawyer with no other notable cases on his record, unlikely to ever be mentioned except in the context of KSM, with no other claim to notability in his own right, is not the very embodiment of WP:ONEEVENT, that can only be determined in the discussion, where all are invited to share their viewpoints. You are, of course, free to remove the PROD, and we may take the article to AfD, where I suspect there will be no shortage of people to discuss this at great length. RayAYang (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Did I fill out the fair use for the image wrong, or did you submit a proposed deletion on the image because you'd already prodded the article? I'm not very experienced in submitting images, I've only done a few. I still believe the article should stay. One of the irritating things about WP is that sometimes in order to keep one's little work from being deleted, one has to put big work into it, making the loss of the article that much more aggravating. Another rule I don't have a handle on yet is "Wikipedia is not paper." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia of politics, and one can continue reducing the scope, but where does one stop and say, it is not an encyclopedia of: (blank). The trekkies had to make their own wikipedia, in spite of all that is allowed on WP itself. WP is an encyclopedia of roads (which I don't really get), but not one of US Republican primaries? Of autobiographers? Of crackpots? These are all things people could conceivably come to WP looking for information. Argh. Supposing you're hell-bent on deletion of the article, is there at least not some article where information about this person could form a section? I think that would be less than ideal, but it might be a compromise. Шизомби (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I submitted a deletion request on the image. That might have been someone else. Feel free to remove the PROD. I'm not inclined to take it to AfD given the work you've put into it; that might not be true for other editors. RayAYang (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you've put a prod warning on the article Business Gold Coast. The article currently doesn't conform to the notability requirements, however I do want to add considerably to this article over the next few days. Can I suggest a removal of the warning (no idea how to do this myself) and I'll improve it? Thanks! 203.3.65.1 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh. Seems you're a bit late. Looks like some admin has already deleted it. I recommend you use a sandbox of your own to draft something until it's ready. That way, it won't get deleted early on you. RayAYang (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
Thanks to You, the article I've posted recently about a 1981 album Desire by my favourite band Tuxedomoon has now a notability tag and may be deleted. I've added some additional info.
Now please tell me, what was wrong with the article? And is it ok now, so You can remove the tag? If not, what kind of information should I insert to improve it?
Thanks a lot.
James6 ged (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The notability tag is more of a warning that you may be falling out of guidelines. The relevant section of the guideilnes reads: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources."
So what's happening here is that the band is notable, but you haven't linked to independent media coverage of the album. There should be significant independent coverage for the album to qualify for an article of its own. If it's just another album, you may want to consider merging the information into the band's own article. Best, RayAYang (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a matter on which I have expertise, but I don't think that a single rating qualifies as "significant independent coverage" :) RayAYang (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi-
I am new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you could help me make it so this page is no longer marked as paroled. I don't understand exactly what I can do to make it more notable. Do I need to include on the page all of the websites of the organizations that RaDene is involved in and mentioned on? Also, how do I make it less of an advertisement? I have done my best to not make it come across this way. That is why it barely mentions that she is running for senate and focuses more on her background and community service. I started this page because of the 16th Utah Senate District page, which had a link for her opponent's name and her's and she didn't have a page in place.
Any advice on the aforementioned issues and any others that you might pick up on reading around the site would be very welcomed. If can help me please respond at User Talk:Asmile4u
Asmile4u (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's "patrolled", not "paroled." Patrolling is not a problem, since all that means is that somebody looked at the article and decided it wasn't nonsense to be speedily deleted. However, you should be aware of the notability guidelines surrounding politicians, as well as the general guidelines for biographies. It is quite possible that Mrs. Hatfield is not notable per those guidelines, in which case you may want to consider merging basic biographic data on Mrs. Hatfield into the article for the 16th Utah Senate District. Best, RayAYang (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
War and Decision
Thanks for your good edits at War and Decision. I apologize for not responding to your comments on the talk page until today.
I've just added a paragraph about Christopher Hitchen's 2008-06-02 column. Could you please take a look at it and make any improvements you think desirable? (I trust your judgement.) Thanks, CWC12:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:RayAYang. 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.
