User talk:Isotope23/Archive 2
 Archives |
|---|
Scalar Gravity again edit
Hi, Isotope23, I take we agree that the topic Scalar theories of gravity is notable, but the article should have that title, not Scalar Gravity (a title which doesn't even observe the Wikipedia capitalization convention. I see nothing to build on in the existing article, and since even the title would need to be changed, I think it makes sense to delete the article Scalar Gravity. So I hope you will change your vote after all.
If you can write and are willing to write an article on Scalar theories of gravitation, I'd be very happy, since I lack the energy/interest and don't expect to feel inspired for months or years to come. The recent review article by Goenner at the Living Reviews of Relativity website should be useful.---CH (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added more comments to the AfD page, including some helpful references for anyone seeking to write the suggested article on Scalar theories of gravitation. Looks like another editor also provided some excellent references, although they are mostly not pure scalar theories of gravitation (as far as I can see). Ooops, I also replied on my own talk page (how confusing!) saying you should to this because you'd almost certainly find it enjoyable/fun/a_valuable_learning_experience once you got started.---CH (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I placed a notice on the Wikiproject:Michigan talk page to see if anyone would be interested in improving the article before Super Bowl XL (in Detroit). I believe the article will definitely be visited by people who are curious in the city which is hosting the Super Bowl. Pentawing 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Good idea for an article! edit
List of place names that you may or may not find to be interesting or unusual depending on whether or not you agree with the author and contributors who are apparently easily interested and amused. Thanks for making me laugh. My good faith gets spread really thin when dealing with listcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
AfD on James Watkins and <courtesy blanked> edit
A nominator made a very peculiar "joint nomination" of these two persons (perhaps because they are married to each other). However, each person has a very different purport to notability, and the deletions should be decided independently. It would be great if you could clarify on each AfD what your voting intent is. Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Notable Churches edit
Thank you for trying to help me even though you were beaten by TMS63112! Haha. Anyway, visit his/her talk page to see my reply if you would like to help me further (by no means are you obligated to). Have an awesome day. EdGl 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Prodding edit
This was probably just an oversight but some of the prods you did on 2/14 didn't have a descriptor, so they showed up as (reason not found) on the prod list. Thatcher131 04:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Thatcher131 14:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Reconsider AfD on Imao Blog Article? edit
Please reconsider your vote to Delete on the AfD on article Imao blog? Per WP:WEB There are more factors to notability than Alexa rank. The article has been edited to include verifiable evidence of notabliity. FlyingSpaceMonkey 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You voted "Merge to Internet slang". The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Isotope23, I have a new source that shows notability. The points I was trying to make with my "wikilawyering" were that one of the articles I cited falls within the wiki guidelines of notability. Really, it's not a debate. Either it falls within the guidelines or it doesn't. According to the guidelines, the Sydney Morning Herald article falls within the guidelines. Also, I've added a Stanford University document that cites EaC for it's text mining algorithm. How many websites are cited in a University course? That's notable. Could you please change your vote to keep?
Thanks,
--Dave 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Dave, let me look into the Standford University source you cited a bit before I make a decision. On the bright side for you, regardless of what I decide, it would appear that this article is headed for a "Keep" or "No Consensus" decision (which is a default keep) based on the votes, so in all likelyhood Everyonesacritic.net will be sticking around. Cheers!--Isotope23 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Isotope23. The pdf document I linked to from the everyonesacritic.net article is currently hosted by Stuttgart University out of Germany. The original document was written at Stanford. If you look at page 3 of the document you will see a reference to Stanford students and Palo Alto. everyonesacritic.net is referenced on page 9.--Dave 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
On the List of Nine Inch Nails covers AfD discussion, you voted
- Merge to Nine Inch Nails. No reason for more lists to spawn pertaining to songs written by a band and covered by another, or songs a band has covered that were written by someone else.
However, each article on individual songs already contains a list of groups who have covered that song (see Head Like a Hole, Closer To God, etc.). Since the relevant information is readily available in other articles (i.e., it's essentially merged already), would you consider changing your vote to just delete? - Rynne 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Cherokee Slang edit
Would you consider changing your vote on Cherokee Slang if I agree to transwiki the content or move it (well some of it anyway -- it's very terse and blunt about what it refers to) to Cherokee Language? Please consider saving it, it's accurate and one of a kind content. Waya sahoni 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Bennett edit
Please read my response to the Bennett vote page, and reconsider your vote. Thank you so much. [1] Sgactorny 20:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
We're on the threshold of a no consensus here. I've moved relevant text into the appropriate section of Robert Moog. As I continue to contend that "Moog records" is protologism, would you support a merge and delete? -- Krash (Talk) 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
"Thanks for the sig" edit
Yeah, sorry if I'm being a dick. I kind of let myself get bugged by the anon in that thread and I guess went on a little "death to anons" trip there. In your particular case I wanted people to know that was a real editor though. Hope I didn't offend. · rodii · 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Re:G7 edit
Hi - thanks for your advice. Rama's Arrow 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Rama's Arrow 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
AfD edit
Thanks for the speedy:attack suggestion. Hope it works quickly! - CobaltBlueTony 18:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Roti (west indian)
Thank you for consulting me first about merging the article. I will allow it to be merged only if the content stays the same and is separated by a strike line from the other parts of the article because when I first read that article it had many inaccuracies.
Sounds good to me.
It's good. Thank you for cleaning it up.
My Rfc edit
Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
My RfA edit
My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)