User talk:Cfred
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
Note: Due to tax season, my responses to comments made here may be delayed from Feb. 1 until April 15.
[edit] Proposed deletion BJCP page
I put a PD tag on this page 22 Nov., you came by and added request for sources, plus noted that I should have put the tag on the article. I am a little new to this (obvious? ;-)) and found this morning that the page is not listed in the logs for proposed deletion (for 22 Nov.) and that the tag has been removed from the page. Furthermore, I can't see when or who removed it.
Perhaps I am confused about the process, but what happened to the proposed deletion on 22 Nov? (BTW, I've put the tag back on this morning). If you have any suggestions on what I have done wrong or what more I should have done or anything else related to this, I would appreciate it. I have, of course, read the help pages and thought this was done correctly, but I will be happy to fix it if that is not the case.
IAC, many thanks for your help. Mikebe 08:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I read your note and thanks for the explanation. My reason for the NPOV violation is that the article is very one-sided in a positive way. A non-positive edit was made on 24 August, for example, and removed on 1 Sept.
But, thanks for your explanation -- it helps me understand better how things work around here. Thanks! Mikebe 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There is another page that I am trying to have deleted and I would appreciate very much your comments/thoughts on the following: a restaurant (brewpub) lists three references. The three are: a listing (not review) in a local magazine, a fairly negative restaurant review in a major newspaper 11 years ago and a recent mediocre restaurant review in a local newspaper. Do you think this meets the requirements of WG:COMPANY? I ask this because the requirement is "non-trivial" and since virtually all restaurants are reviewed, it seems trivial. Thanks. Mikebe 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Cfred. I was really wondering about the specific point of whether restaurant reviews qualify as "non-trivial published works" and whether a negative review, for example, would have the same weight as a positive review? I have given up on the deletion request, btw. Mikebe 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The BJCP article in now in AFD. As you had agreed that it violates WG:ORG, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop by there and add your vote for deletion. Thanks for your help. Mikebe 13:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kim Ponders
I nominated an article that you created, Kim Ponders, for deletion. If you think that the article is salvageable, or that I'm mistaken, please comment on its deletion page. Please see the Guide to deletion if you have any questions about Wikipedia's deletion process. -- GreenJoe 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I saw it on recent changes, and saw that the PROD had been removed. They had their opportunity to respond at that time. GreenJoe 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject NCSU
Since you went to NCSU, maybe you should join WikiProject NCSU, which was started today. --Shanedidona 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lakes United
I have added information to the article in an effort to establish notability. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest after reading the guidlines i'm going to agree with you and admit that it's not really relevent to an encylopedia and quite frankly neither is 25-30% of information on this site. I would also like to take the oportunity to apologise for what i said previously, i actually quite like Americans {i guess i just got a bit worked up}. SORRY Perdy80 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No reply?
I have asked you a couple of times about the validity of using restaurant reviews on restaurant articles and wonder why you haven't responded? Mikebe 14:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sigma Alpha Mu
I have read that paragraph a few times, and I don't see anything in there that is worth keeping. How does any of it help the article, in any way? I think that that paragraph alone is a primary reason the article is up for deletion. Just trying to help here. I read your edit summary, and I am wondering what proposed edits you see being helpful. --Tractorkingsfan 04:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extraversion
- Under what criteria do you determine extraversion to be the most common spelling? Merriam-Webster lists it as the variation to extroversion. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of psychologists call the trait extraversion not extrOversion. "Extra" is the original term coined by Jung and used by Eysenck and most other personality theorists. "Extra" is a more appropriate prefix because it denotes "outside the scope of something," as in extraordinary, extravagant, extraterrestrial, or extra credit. Similarly, extraverts go outside of themselves for social interaction and stimulation, as opposed to introverts who stay within themselves and "introspect." If that isn't convincing, take a look at the following hit counts on Google:
- 453,000 for extroversion
- 1,140,000 for extrAversion
- 8,100 for extroversion (Google Scholar)
- 35,800 for extrAversion (Google Scholar)
ExtrOversion is in the dictionary because people started mispronouncing the word and sort of morphed it with "introversion." Anyway, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Webster's as an authority. Mine has an entry for ain't which is the classic example of incorrect usage of the English language.
I think we should delete Introversion and extroversion because it seems unlikely that anyone will search that specific phrase, and we already have blank pages for introverson and extraversion that redirect to the new entry.
By the way, I reversed the order from I-E to E-I because that is consistent with Eysenck's original terminology. Jcbutler 06:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sasha Cohen
I don't entirely object to your edits; but there are some problems:
-
- Prior to your edits there was a consensus between myself and Mad Jack (who is really "on top of" celebrity "ethnicity" in Wikipedia); and,
-
- Please don't be of offended, but the language you are using is somewhat stilted.
--Lance talk 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NCSU at Raleigh
Yes I did notice the UNC in the user names. The same user names edited the UNC system page. Although a NCSU alum, I try my best to remain unbiased. --Thunder 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Highway shields
There's an issue going on with some of these, and I think it needs to be cleared up, but I need some clarification on it. If a shield (logo) for something like the Pennsylvania Turnpike is re-created by a user, is it copyrighted or public domain (should the creator choose to release it as PD)? The Ohio Turnpike shield is released into the Public Domain, whereas the Pennsylvania Turnpike logo is listed as copyrighted even though it was created by the user. The Massachusetts Turnpike, New Jersey Turnpike and New York Thruway logos/shields are both non-svgs and I question where the NJTpk logo came from, but should those be remade by me or another editor, are they PD as well? I would imagine they'd follow the same rules of Interstate Highway shields. --MPD (T / C) 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Complex numbers exponential
Whew! That article made my eyes bleed! I see you tagged it as {{incoherent}} with the comment: -I can't find a better tag to say "This is in jargon; please rewrite in English prose. That tag does seem to apply, but maybe {{technical (expert)}} might come in useful too. Regards, Tonywalton | Talk 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Liferay
This is in response to the post you made on my talk page.
If you wanted independent sources, could you in the future just ask rather than just blatantly deleting the content? I guess that is the policy... so, that's the policy.
Ok, for some independent resources:
- eWeek labs studied Liferay as an open source alternative to the many commerical products out there.
- Infoworld did a write up comparing Liferay Portal against its competitor Jboss portal. It also describes many of its features, strengths and weaknesses.
- www.regdeveloper.co.uk has an article describing the product as an open source alternative to the commercial product Plum Tree.
- Linux.com comments on how Goodwill industries is using Liferay as does Techtarget.com.
- A blogger comments on why he chose Liferay over its competitor uPortal. Again, he lists many of the features, strengths and weaknesses.
- Several bloggers [1][2] have commented on what's new in the latest version of the portal (4.2).
How's that for a start? Caorongjin 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to start a write up. But, according to your comments, you would not include the fourth set of links that includes Goodwill Industries (or, for that matter, other portals built on Liferay)? Caorongjin 06:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Per your suggestion, I have drafted up a new article under [User:Caorongjin/Liferay]. How do I get this reviewed to be submitted into the [Liferay] location? Caorongjin
- I've made all the footnoting and other updates. BTW, I have to say, I really like the way Mediawiki handles citations! Caorongjin 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Just curious if you had a chance to look over that Liferay article for me? If so, could it be published?Caorongjin 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that nobody has really commented on the Liferay discussion section. Does this mean that my article will never be submitted? Or do I simply wait... indefinitely? I am not sure what needs to be done in this matter. Caorongjin 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to be annoying or anything.. but any updates?
Hey Cfred, do you have any updates on the Liferay article? I have done the things you have asked and noticed the lock has been lifted from the article, but does that mean I can enter the article that I had written? What should I do for this? How long should I wait? Caorongjin 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] American Football Rules
Thank you for your contribution.
I have had to reverse some of the changes you have made. I have copies of the NFL and NCAA rulebooks in front of me. College does have a two-minute warning if the game clock is not visible. The fourth down fumble rule does apply in the NFL (but not NFHS, thanks for correcting that). --Sbowness 23:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
More than happy to help. My expertise lies in the differences between NFL & NCAA. There is a good comparison of the differences between HS & NCAA rules here: http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/2006MajorNFHS-NCAA%20FB_Rules_Differences.pdf' You can also get a copy of the NCAA rule book here: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/2006_football_rules.pdf --Sbowness 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Irwin death image
I never said I had ownership. GDFL means that it's a fair use image, right? I never said I made it or anything. I live in Los Angeles, there's no way I could've been underwater with a celebrity in Australia when he died. First of all, it's not copyrighted. The guy who photographed it never took out a copyright on it (and even if he did, Australia's patent system sucks -- some guy over there patented the wheel if I remember correctly), and wouldn't have been able to anyway because the video is in police custody. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as copyright goes, it's automatic unless you release it. That's what GFDL is—well, actually, you aren't releasing copyright, you're just licensing it under a more-or-less limitless license. The fact that it is in police custody doesn't change the copyright status. Now, had the police taken the image, then it's a different matter. Depending on who took the image, it could be public domain (US government images are, effectively; they can't be copyrighted), or it could be under crown copyright or local-government copyright.
- In this particular case, though, it doesn't matter, since other editors have seen the image elsewhere and note that it is an artist's rendition and not legitimate. —C.Fred (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, they've been proven to be real. Irwin's family even said they were, as well as those who witnessed his death. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then you've got a source for this image so we can all go see where it came from, right? —C.Fred (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, they've been proven to be real. Irwin's family even said they were, as well as those who witnessed his death. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject College football
Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! --Tlmclain | Talk 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sigma Alpha Mu
I removed the links from the table of chapters and retained the rest of it. There is discussion at WP:AN#Fraternities and sororities and the consensus appears to be that such lists can stay in the articles but links to each chapter should not. Please feel free to add your two cents to that discussion. Thanks, Metros232 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Does the national organization have any chapter directory of links that we can add as a single link? That's one option that would work since all the links would be contained in one simple link rather than a table of them. I explored the national site and didn't see one, but thought maybe you'd know of one. Thanks, Metros232 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zeta Phi Chapter of Beta Theta Pi
you might recall this entry was put up for a vote over deletion ~6 months ago. The issue was notability and chapter advocates cited Sam Walton, Kenneth Lay, Edgar Snow, Byron Calame, Gary Barnett, etc. The results were no consensus and it was allowed to remain. Suddenly it was deleted the other day, and appears to have been done so without any authority whatsoever. I didn't know who to ask, but you seemed to be judicious in handling the initial vote over notability, so is this deletion possible under the rules of Wikipedia? Personally, I thought the chapter had surpassed the standard of notability and am disappointed the page has been deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.63.10.24 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] See Fred
Hi C.fred Your user boxes could easily sit on my user page. Except the ones about programming etc. And I just want a dachshund (as an owner). If you have a moment, could you give advice on using Mac OSX efficiently to edit wikipedia. I found Firefox pretty good but have been using Opera. I should probably learn a bit about programming languages or whatever. Anyway, regards Fred 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1
   The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter |
||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 1 | 10 February 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for input
Remember a while back when I asked you your opinion on Fair Use v. PD images of shields? It's been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Is this eligible for copyright.3F. You have some good points that can be made. Cheers, --MPD T / C 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries for articles sent to AfD
Yep, screw up on my part (which I've done more than once, I know...). Cheers --Pak21 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #2
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Apologies for the late delivery. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cfred
What do you mean by that message you left on my talk page we have a wireless router that connects many laptop computers and 1 destop computer
--75.42.158.40 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I mean is, what I said above. That's what your IP address resolves to, that you're a SBC customer in...Plano, Texas, is what the lookup below said. Whether you're running one computer, a network like you've described, or a small cluster of supercomputers doesn't concern me at all. Just pointing out whose address it was, in light of Bankman's comment above. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 3
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter |
||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 3 | 10 March 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
[edit] Active user verification
Hello, Cfred. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Leafs
Thank you for your comments. I have discovered the core problem with wikipedia, that as time goes on you spend progressively less time writing and more time fixing vandalism, a situation which really works against wikipedia and which its leader appears not to care about. Anyway, when the situation permits, I try to get a little creative, as I've decided that vandals will do whatever they want to regardless. :) Wahkeenah 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 4
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter |
||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 4 | 24 March 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recentness
I don't have much of an opinion on the general matter yet, but regarding this edit, the fact that an event is recent does not make it encyclopedic, and in fact, likely the reverse is true... it's much easier to gauge the historical significance of an event after some time has passed.
Also, if you have any links that point out national exposure the event has gotten, that might be good to add to the article. --Interiot 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
