Welcome!
Hello, Pop Secret, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Ziggurat
07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for your analysis of my contributions - it will help me improve in the future, no doubt. However, you don't have suffrage for this election (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote). Unfortunately, this means your vote is disqualified; I have moved it to the talk page, rather than removing it as some other candidates/election officials have done, because I believe in transparency, and if people want to make an informed decision they should have all viewpoints available to them. I hope you don't mind, and if you have any questions or issues, feel free to leave me a note on my user talk page and I'll be happy to discuss them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The page I'm entitled to my opinion has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate it for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. GRBerry 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I love this policy stuff. Good idea to move it off of AFD, though.
I believe that we, as editors should not be passing judgment on whether coverage is merited or faddish or whatever. I don't think that Paris Hilton or any of her socialite friends should get as much coverage as they do, but they do, so they're notable. Likewise, whether or not I think that Wheeler deserves coverage, she's gotten some, so it appears to me that she, too, is notable.
The definition of trivial (or as I put it, neglible) coverage in an article is defined at WP:N, and basically it just refers to the depth of coverage in an article. If all there is in a source is a name in the middle of a list of names, that's obviously trivial. If it's a feature article about the subject, it's obviously not. When you get a paragraph or two, I think that's where judgement calls come into play about whether or not a specific article can be used to justify notability. Although the guideline does say that a sufficient number of trivial mentions may be enough to confer notability, as well.
Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other about the Wheeler article, but I enjoyed this chance to talk policy. Chunky Rice 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If there are any arguments to delete, it immediately becomes not a speedy keep candidate. Check WP:CSK for more info on that. -- Core desat 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we seem to be completely out. Orville Redenbacher's better anyway, although arguably the improvement in quality is not worth the extra cost. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Pop Secret, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Ziggurat
07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for your analysis of my contributions - it will help me improve in the future, no doubt. However, you don't have suffrage for this election (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote). Unfortunately, this means your vote is disqualified; I have moved it to the talk page, rather than removing it as some other candidates/election officials have done, because I believe in transparency, and if people want to make an informed decision they should have all viewpoints available to them. I hope you don't mind, and if you have any questions or issues, feel free to leave me a note on my user talk page and I'll be happy to discuss them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The page I'm entitled to my opinion has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate it for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. GRBerry 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I love this policy stuff. Good idea to move it off of AFD, though.
I believe that we, as editors should not be passing judgment on whether coverage is merited or faddish or whatever. I don't think that Paris Hilton or any of her socialite friends should get as much coverage as they do, but they do, so they're notable. Likewise, whether or not I think that Wheeler deserves coverage, she's gotten some, so it appears to me that she, too, is notable.
The definition of trivial (or as I put it, neglible) coverage in an article is defined at WP:N, and basically it just refers to the depth of coverage in an article. If all there is in a source is a name in the middle of a list of names, that's obviously trivial. If it's a feature article about the subject, it's obviously not. When you get a paragraph or two, I think that's where judgement calls come into play about whether or not a specific article can be used to justify notability. Although the guideline does say that a sufficient number of trivial mentions may be enough to confer notability, as well.
Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other about the Wheeler article, but I enjoyed this chance to talk policy. Chunky Rice 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If there are any arguments to delete, it immediately becomes not a speedy keep candidate. Check WP:CSK for more info on that. -- Core desat 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we seem to be completely out. Orville Redenbacher's better anyway, although arguably the improvement in quality is not worth the extra cost. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)