User talk:WikiDan61/Archive20111101

Good morning Sir,

I was wondering on how i can prevent this article from deletion? This article was made as a record or "online history reference" on one of the many Fraternities here in the Philippines, how can we make this notable? credible? thank you.Theodore8087 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you contacted me on this as I've nothing to do with the article or its deletion process, but I'll explain what I can. The article is nominated for deletion because there are no reliable sources used as references within the article, and the nominating editor could not find any when he searched for them. If you can provide such sources, you should do so. You should also make your opinion known at the relevant articles for deletion page linked above. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dan61. I am just learning on wikipedia and I haven't completed the article. Please stay tuned as I am finishing up the errors you pointed out, along with the citations.

--BeautyGuru (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)beautyguru

Thank you for your guidance and taking the time to help a newbie.

--BeautyGuru (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)BeautyGuru

WikiDan61-

I appreciate your help and comments regarding my baseball announcer article. Although I feel it is encyclopedic in that many fans may want a logical, cited, reliable source for this information; you may have a point about it being fancruft. Is it possible that it could be a link connected to your already existing list of major league baseball announcers for each team? That way it may get noticed by users and that would help me complete the list and determine whether anyone is indeed interested in such a topic.

Friends and I (not for academia but for blogs) were debating this topic and could find no clear, concise source for this information. As wiki is easy to edit (sort of as I am learning as I go thanks to your tips), we thought it might be the best place to make a credible source that listed this information.

Again, you bring up many valid points in questioning the legitimacy and need for this type of article. As an educator of middle school, I am very glad to be involved in the debate over information sharing and even happier to see how people like you really do actively make wikipedia a credible source for some information. My wife is a librarian and is fascinated by this dialogue we have going. We have long disagreed with the knee jerk reaction at schools to blindly say things like "no wikipedia can be used for any research." We feel that is wrong for many topics and your prompt, intelligent and thorough vetting of my article is proof.

Where does that leave us with our list of catch phrases for major league baseball announcers? Well I would just say that it is a simple chart designed to allow people to compare and contrast different methods of expressing the same observation. In some ways it may have nothing to do with baseball but everything to do with syntax, language and the poetic description of live events. Perhaps this type of chart, if properly sourced and vigilantly updated, has a place in our pop culture discussions, language discussions, regional colloquialism discussions and certainly baseball discussions.

As a newbie, I think I am writing this to you on your page but would love to post some of these points on the discussion page. Did I do that properly?

Thanks again, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzdl (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan,

Thanks for your message regarding my new article.

To be honest, I read the articles that you sent me, and I do not understand why it does not fit the guidelines.

I noticed that a number of similar companies appear on wikipedia (in many languages), and I found it important to add it.

Would appreciate your feedback.

Thank you!

Tomsterwik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsterwik (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

if you don't understand why your article doesn't meet the guidelines, then you may not have read the guidelines well enough. Specifically, there is no evidence of significant coverage indicating that Neumann is not just another recruitment company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and quick editing. In my view deleting a book on the ground of self publishing is not in accordance with the Wikipedia spirit or values. Self publishing is a trend that will grow as it is more profitable for writers. In order to avoid publicity to unfamiliar writer I deleted his name, and the entrance should be judged on the merits of book. The book offers considerable answers to Jewish believers, in addition it offers a new model and a theory of everything. I asked to scientists about this theory. None of them dismissed it.

In summation it is an important book both artistically and philosophically.

The writer declares that the book is fictional. Therefore deleting the value is justifiable only if it doesn’t contribute anything of significant to human thought – and I of course dispute that. I expect Wikipedia to judge by facts rather than circumstances of publication. Thank you again for your professional editing Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.egalut (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to delete the name of the author of the book "to avoid publicity". Wikipedia is not about generating publicity, but on reporting encyclopedic content. Part of the encyclopedic content in any article about a book is the author's name. Hiding the name implies that the author is somehow trying to avoid scrutiny. And, whatever you feel about the importance of this book from your own personal perspective, if the book has not been the subject of independent reviews published in reputable sources, it will not merit a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Under the impression of your first message I decided to stick to the facts that cannot be refuted meaning the contents of that book. This is my first , and probably the last, attempt to write an entry for Wikipedia after many years of using it. I didn’t think omitting is inappropriate in an open source environment – since someone of interest will probably try to fix it by providing further information or links. Finding the writer’s name by the way is simple for example at www.bn.com so I didn’t quite understand your insinuations. I enjoyed reading the book and in my view it makes a distinct contribution to human thought to justify an entry. Any way I found it inspiring enough to write about it. I didn’t expect to encounter hostility toward a new member. I will make future contributions where I feel they are welcomed such as at www.goodreads.com or other venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.egalut (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you believe I have acted with hostility toward you. That was not my intention. My intention was to inform you that Wikipedia has certain standards, and that the article you have written does not meet these standards. It was an invitation for you to become familiar with the standards and to improve your article. If you choose not to do so, that is your choice. And I made no insinuations; I merely inferred from your own comments in the initial article (Details about the writer are not provided, both its private name and surname are very common) that there was some shade of secrecy over the authorship of the book. This seemed to me to be inappropriate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not offended. Instant messages can cause missunderstandings. Your editing greately improved this value and I appricate the work you invested.

Those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew names, the majority of Wikipedia English readers, might come to the conclusion that it is the first name that pops in Google. If it was John Smith I would not have written it. This paragraph indeed does not contribute information but might prevent readers’ from jumping into conclusions.

One of my R&D managers jokes that he reads the instructions only when he runs out of options. One thing is for sure writing for wikipedia makes one read the rules. Tim.egalut (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dan Please accept my apologies for over reacting. Your response was not and could not be mistaken as hostile and I was not offended in any way. Thank you for excellent and professional editing. I have come to the conclusion that deleting this entry is appropriate at this time. I will not contribute to Wikipedia without consulting you first. Thank You Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.egalut (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to contribute to Wikipedia. You just need to contribute in a way that meets the policies and guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a friend of Salvia J. and was asked to comment to this discussion. I must dispute both notability and accuracy: Notability:

The book (Introduction to Hebrew Logic) provides a revolutionary model. According to this model the speed of light consist of two components Pc and Fc. Since only Pc is observant we recognize Pc as C (the speed of light). Fc is the component that explains why the speed of light seems to be constant.

Sending beam X against beam Y , the two beams will move at each other at the constant speed of light (C), this is the conventional theory of relativity.

Sending two locomotors(X and Y) against each other at the speed of 90 Miles per Hour the two locomotors will collide at 180 M/H. What makes the speed of light so different that it doesn’t bound by simple Algebra?

This exactly what the book Introduction to Hebrew Logic answers.

Let say that the front wheels of engines x and y are welded by unbreakable welds to the same steel track. Assuming that the engines are powerful enough, the track will bend. The shape and frequency, or the amplitude, of the bended rails is determined by the power of the two engines (and other factors such as the qualities of the steel). Since we can observe only one engine (Pc) we mistake the result of the two engines (Pc + Fc) as the speed of only one (Pc). In our mind Pc=C, whereas in nature C=Pc+Fc.

According to Introduction to Hebrew Logic - quantum at the edge of the beam triggers Pc and Fc. This is the meeting point of the theory of relativity, quantum physics, and string theory.

Since beam X is riding on Y’s Fc, and since beam Y is riding on X’s Fc, the speed doesn’t change it stays C, the only different is that now we can observe two opposite beams in the observable space. This model is as revolutionary as Kant’s Copernican revolution, and Einstien’s theory of relativity. Accuracy:

In my view the account provided by tim.egalut should be deleted on account of accuracy, rather that notability. The book offers a unifying theory of everything in chapters 8 and 9, all the other chapters relates to philosophy in its widest meaning: ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of science.

Miscellaneous: Originally the book was intended for circulation only among friends of Salvia J. Yeshiva students discovered the book Xeroxed it and circulate it as an underground book of Zohar. Therefore circulation is now open for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.230.209 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't throw such gibberish at me and expect me to be amazed. If you can't understand the concepts of relativistic physics (and I admit, they are complex), please don't tell me that the real answers lie in the Hebrew scriptures, written 3000 years ago. I'm a man of faith, and look to the Bible to inform me about my faith, but not about the realities of the physical world. God has endowed mankind with a wonderful intellect to be able to discover his wonderful design through established scientific methods, not through mumbo-jumbo. If you have anything of substance to say about the deletion of this book, you should address your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction To Hebrew Logic. Part One: The Ketoret. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Ser Amantio di Nicolao's talk page.
Message added 16:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MJ94 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Ser Amantio di Nicolao's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. The ficonal statement is important untill the delete. I guess Tim will not object to the delete and will appology to you for his out of place comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freindofsalvia (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dan,

Thanks for your feedback. I shall review the article and try to update it accordingly in line with your feedback.

Thanks

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Ford1979 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Still new to this thing so I have no idea how to actually write back to you properly. How do I move the page from the public to my user page? I thought it was there already. (Sprinter9 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC))

I can take care of the move for you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, there are so many variables to this. Clearly trying to do this while in class is not the brightest idea.

(Sprinter9 (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC))

Hi, I noticed that you've userfied that page but I have just nominated it for Afd, so I think it shouldn't have been moved out of the article namespace without a discussion. Must've been some sort of edit conflict. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was (as I have noted at the AFD). I don't think the AFD was really appropriate since the user's comments at your talk page indicated pretty clearly that he had intended the page to be created in his userspace. I think the AFD should just be closed as a non-admin closure for now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I read on my talk page, the creator is simultaneously writing on several articles and intended to use this list as a standalone supplement for his main article, hence the redirect at the bottom of the page in an attempt to link to his main article. And such a practice is nonsense in my opinion so that's why I was filing for deletion, even more since he had removed a prod that I had placed before. I won't mind a non-admin closure though, as long as the current list is not restored in the article namespace. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be worthwhile to keep an eye on this editor's contributions as he makes his start at Wikipedia. Better to steer in the right direction than to discourage altogether. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for closing the deletion discussion. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiDan61 -

I was wondering why you have nominated my page for deletion? What is the problem with the page, and what can be done to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I explained the situation very clearly on the proposed deletion (which you deleted) and now in the deletion discussion. The article makes no assertion that this product is not just like every other product in its category. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise any particular product, nor is it intended to be a comprehensive directory of every product in the world. Products, like all other subjects, must meet notability guidelines to be included, and iChill does not appear to meet these guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

iChill is notable because it's not just a relaxation drink (which there are many of), but the makers of the product claim that it is the world's first relaxation shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Which makes it notable because it's small? Or because its manufacturer says so? If you have comments about the deletion of the article, you should address them to the deletion discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes 5-hour energy notable, or Dream Water, or Redbull, or Rockstar, or Monster? I'm not trying to argue, I just want to know what I need to change to make my page "viable" by your standards. There are links on my page to news articles, the FDA, the origin of relaxation drinks (although remember this is a shot). Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes those other products notable is the fact that they have received significant coverage in independent, third-party sources. This is likely because they have made a lot of noise for themselves through notable advertising campaigns and sponsorships. Whatever the reason they have become notable, they have done so, and there does not appear to be any indication that iChill has. If you can provide evidence of significant coverage (i.e. not just press releases that the company has published, or to an FDA page about the nature of dietary supplement regulation which does not mention iChill (or relaxation drinks) at all), then you might have something. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The iChill website says under media coverage that they were featured on Good Morning America, The View, and was voted retailers choice hottest product of 2010 in health and wellness. This information is all on the ichill website. But for it to be valid I need to find this information on a website other than the iChill one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just made some adjustments to the page. Please check it out and let me know about your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- just not seeing any real notability here. Claims of coverage on The View and Today cannot be verified at all. Coverage at Good Morning America appears to have been limited to coverage of the genre, with this brand as an example,(see ) but not coverage of this brand by itself, as would be required. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I made another adjustment about it being the world's first relaxation shot. If you'd like to take the time you can google "iChill on The View", or "iChill on the Today Show", or "iChill on Good Morning America". Or you can check youtube.com for the televised commercials that the product has. I'm assuming videos are not proper sources for Wikipedia. It's a notable product. Let me know what else I can do to improve the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've told you the problems I have with the page. The page is nominated for deletion. Make your case on the deletion discussion page. Nothing you say here will have any effect on that discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your time and help. Bradas (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the article before it was deleted, so can you review it again? If not, I'll request an undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slam360 (talk • contribs)

I can't review the article once it has been deleted (but an admin might be able to), but I did notice that you had modified the article somewhat prior to its deletion. Sadly, I'm afraid that your conflict of interest as the show's producer would make it difficult to be complete neutral on the topic. If you think the show merits an article, I suggest that you request one at WP:Requested articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Ppeereboom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Rymatz's talk page.
Message added 13:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rymatz (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Cupidon92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

noq (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Milroy Goes info also be found on

• http://www.goenche.com/interview_details.php?id=6
• http://goenche.com/GOESCOIN_FILMS
• http://www.goes.co.in/
• http://www.klonisky.com/media
• http://www.v-ixtt.com/client/details.asp?id=3761
• http://www.v-ixtt.com/client/list.asp?offset=20&id=18

hope this info will help you verify

also check IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1964699/ and or just search Milroy Goes on google you'll find some info about him.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwritingoes (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My concern about the Milroy goes page is not that the information is incorrect, but rather that the subject is not notable. Since the page has been nominated for deletion, you should direct any comments related to the deletion or retention of the article to the appropriate discussion page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dan, John.Bond954 here -- thanks for commenting omy first article ... how does one actually wikify? :) John.bond954 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Ok I'm a dummy -- I actually clicked the link and looked wikify up ---- I'll be addint internal links --- beyod that, what do you suggest? John.bond954 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the "wikify" link, it will tell you how to wikify. Basically it means to make the article conform to Wikipedia standards by including internal links ("wikilinks"), and by formatting the article according to the manual of style.

By the way, you'll notice that I have moved this discussion to my talk page. You had originally left this comment on my user page. All discussions with other users should occur at their user talk pages; it is considered somewhat rude to edit another user's user page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What you have to do is click on the link, zoom into the Huntington Station area, and then click on "Place". Then, you have to click on the "Race" and "Ethnicity" tabs to get the number of people of each race/ethnicity. From there, you just calculate the percentage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkmatechamp137 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the gauche edit on your user page -- I'm on the rest of it ...appreciate the input ... John.bond954 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks bro -- I be ultimate noob -- you be helpful old pro ---- your input much appreciated. I hace cleanup to do on both articles I've worked on (Andros Island, edited; Les Standiford, created) --- will get those straight before moving on to other things ...

Again -- ty --------------- John.bond954 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

After 3 years, 7 months, and 5 days... I feel I can give something to others who might come aboard as confused as was I. WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea you offered. THIS is the result. Decent enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete my artical there was nothing wrong with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkirk99 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete your article. I'm not an administrator and do not have the authority to delete articles. If you give me the exact title of the article, I can look into who did delete it and try to track down the reasons for it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		During disussions on the talk page for Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers you shared some wonderful insights that I was able to incorporate into the essay. I am grateful for your assistance and hope that WP:NewbieGuide will be of benefit to newcomers for years to come. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the double whammy!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

replyment was added to my page as you requested on your page (if i got it right).. OfekRon —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 14:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)