User talk:Ryan Vesey/Michael David Crawford
First Discussion (between author and afd nominators)
editAll of the references on this page are to articles written by Michael Crawford. There are no published references to him. --American Virgo 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not so, he has an album published and sometimes gives live performances. So he is popular and thus notable. This is a work in progress and more will be added later as we discover more of his published works. --Thomas Hard 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The music is self published on sites that allow anyone to do so. There are no independent references to the man. The only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Crawford is anything but notable. --American Virgo 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not so here is an independent reference to the man not written by him it was written by this man from that same web site. He is notable. -Thomas Hard 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- A comment left on a webpage of a self published music album hardly constitutes an independent reference. --American Virgo 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- User talk:MichaelCrawford he has contributed to Wikipedia and has not contributed to this article either. There are independent references to Michal Crawford on various Wikipedia pages. This article just fleshes out the works he has contributed to the open source community and why he is notable. --Thomas Hard 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- A comment left on a webpage of a self published music album hardly constitutes an independent reference. --American Virgo 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not so here is an independent reference to the man not written by him it was written by this man from that same web site. He is notable. -Thomas Hard 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The music is self published on sites that allow anyone to do so. There are no independent references to the man. The only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Crawford is anything but notable. --American Virgo 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are some more of his works:
Michael Crawford quotes on open source software
BeBits profile on Michael Crawford he wrote worldservices SDK for BeOS
Michael Crawford is published on Healthyplace.com
Michael Crawford contributes to Zoolib open source programming
Michael Crawford got an article published on Linux load generators
--Thomas Hard 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Mr. Crawford is notable enough that you and others are vandalizing the article. I've had to clean up and revert several times in less than two hours time. --Thomas Hard 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Michael Crawford has a user page at User:MichaelCrawford on Wikipedia. So you can see his contributions to Wikipedia as well. --Thomas Hard 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- All of which are shamelessly promoting him for the sole purpose of driving traffic to his sites, just as this article is. See WP:SPAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.51.251 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Many of the links are not to his sites, some may be but not all of them. --Thomas Hard 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Many" are not links to his sites? "Some" may be? Of his 12 edits, 10 are him adding links to his own sites (oggfrog, geometricvisions, goingware, vancouverdiaries, hydrogenbomb), one is him then correcting a typo in one of those links, and one is him reverting an edit that called him a cunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.169.36 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was talking about the links in this article and that I listed above that are not on his web site. Calling someone a name like that is not NPOV and is a personal attack and discouraged on Wikipedia. You'll do well to remember that. Just like the vandals that added Michael Crawford was from the Batman school of touching junk are also personal attacks and got reverted. The content of this article is verifiable, and incorrect, personal attacks, blankings, etc that are against Wikipedia rules have been removed. --Thomas Hard 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of the external links in the article there is not a single one that doesn't go to a page written by Crawford or to a self publishing media site or a mailing list archive. There is absolutely nothing notable about Crawford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Virgo (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I found one that Michael Crawford is cited as expert on Macsbug by an independent source nthat cites his work. If I had more time, I'd find more of these. As I said I am still doing research and this article is a stub, a work in progress. Please be patient, it is not finished yet. I am trying to keep it NPOV, but you keep vandalizing it along with anon IPs. --Thomas Hard 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm mostly trying to stay out of this debate, but I feel I have to correct something you wrote: yes, it's true that my writing is self-published, but I fail to see how that makes it not notable. The fact is that I prefer to self-publish because I get to keep the rights to it. Were I to write for a traditional publisher, they would make me assign copyright, something I am loathe to do. The fact is, every article at Wikipedia is self-published. Does that make them any less notable? You might have a point if my publications weren't popular or well-received. But I have one web page that's had over four million hits. I have received thousands of emails from people who have read my essays on mental illness, in which they told me what a positive difference my writing made in their lives. MichaelCrawford 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, a lot of open source works are self published and Wikipedia does have an exception for open sourced works. I am also not Michael Crawford, and I am looking up references to him on the Internet to complete this article. Admins can compare the IP of my account and Michael's account to verify that. The only real problem with this article is the number of people vandalizing it, one of whom is American Virgo, and some anon IPs. I think that the Wikipedia community will straighten this out. Almost everyone opposed to this article has vandalized it in some way, if anyone bothers to look at the history, and some of them are personal attacks on Mr. Crawford. The edits made by most of those against this article are not even following Wikipedia guidelines, and they are being reverted. --20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the only real problem with this article is that its topic is not notable, and Wikipedia only contains articles for notable topics as a matter of general editorial policy. I apologise for the endless repetition of this point but you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand or even acknowledge the idea that Wikipedia has a notability policy and that this article trivially fails to satisfy it. It is perfectly acceptable for there to be a Michael Crawford "fan page" somewhere on the internet, but this (or any other encyclopedia) is not the place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.110.220 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikipedia has a notability category. For example, I am not notable enough for Wikipedia, so I would suspect you are not notable either. But then we haven't had open source works on the Internet in our own names, or created a music album, or contributed to open source programming projects, or been part of a major company like Apple Computers, or anything else like that. Which I can understand why you or I wouldn't be notable, but Mr. Crawford has a lot more stuff on the Internet than you or I have, and has done more than you or I have. In fact I believe I said let the Wikipedia community decide this, but you've ignored that and appointed yourself dictator of what is notable or not instead of letting Wikipedia decide. So have the vandals that vandalized this article and helped you place a deletion template on it and make taken the law into their own hands. All I did was revert vandalism, and provide links on the Internet for why Michael Crawford is notable as far as I can understand, but unlike you I leave it up to the Wikipedia community to decide the ultimate fate of this article. I have done my best to make sure this article has factual information and follows Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them. --Thomas Hard 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed Crawford does have "a lot more stuff on the Internet than you or I have", and he has worked for Apple, and he has recorded an album, and he has released "open source works"; unfortunately, none of these contribute anything to his notability. Look at WP:BIO#Specific_examples_of_sources; is he the subject of any such sources? It should be obvious that he isn't. Does he meet ("at a bare minimum") all of the basic criteria? It should be obvious that he doesn't. Perhaps your fundamental complaint is therefore that Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are artificially high, and that may or may not be the case, but until those policies are changed you can't expect to add an article in such flagrant defiance of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.187.248 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is not that Wikipedia's standards are artificially high, I never said that and you keep putting words in my mouth. I just argue over what a reliable source is, and I think he does meet a bare minimum. The terms for reliable source are quite vague anyway, and I don't think they mean what you think they mean. I could be wrong, or misreading them, quite possible. Just that other people got Wikipedia articles on them that are not as notable as Mr. Crawford apparently is, like Rusty Foster, so I used that as a reference. I am not asking for policies to be changed. I am only asking that at least someone reliable listen to my side of the debate and not some Anon IP that actually might be one of the vandals vandalizing the page, as apparently you seem to be in league with American Virgo who did vandalize the page as he helped you with the deletion template, so your objectivity to the article is suspect at best. --Thomas Hard 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The policy pages I linked to couldn't possibly be any clearer about what constitutes a reliable source ("a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand") and what sources are appropriate for determining notability ("A credible independent biography. Widespread coverage over time in the media. Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources. In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications."); if you can't understand them then I can't help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.190.14 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the links cited meet that criteria. --Thomas Hard 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The links cited so clearly fail to meet the criteria that it's becoming hard to believe you're sincere. Can you give any justification on a link by link basis for your judgment? --American Virgo 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have provided links in the article and on this talk page. I feel like I am repeating myself over and over again. I find it hard to believe that you are sincere as you've obviously vandalized the article several times yourself as the history logs show. What I don't understand is why you haven't been blocked yet for that. --Thomas Hard 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The links cited so clearly fail to meet the criteria that it's becoming hard to believe you're sincere. Can you give any justification on a link by link basis for your judgment? --American Virgo 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the links cited meet that criteria. --Thomas Hard 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The policy pages I linked to couldn't possibly be any clearer about what constitutes a reliable source ("a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand") and what sources are appropriate for determining notability ("A credible independent biography. Widespread coverage over time in the media. Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources. In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications."); if you can't understand them then I can't help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.190.14 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is not that Wikipedia's standards are artificially high, I never said that and you keep putting words in my mouth. I just argue over what a reliable source is, and I think he does meet a bare minimum. The terms for reliable source are quite vague anyway, and I don't think they mean what you think they mean. I could be wrong, or misreading them, quite possible. Just that other people got Wikipedia articles on them that are not as notable as Mr. Crawford apparently is, like Rusty Foster, so I used that as a reference. I am not asking for policies to be changed. I am only asking that at least someone reliable listen to my side of the debate and not some Anon IP that actually might be one of the vandals vandalizing the page, as apparently you seem to be in league with American Virgo who did vandalize the page as he helped you with the deletion template, so your objectivity to the article is suspect at best. --Thomas Hard 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed Crawford does have "a lot more stuff on the Internet than you or I have", and he has worked for Apple, and he has recorded an album, and he has released "open source works"; unfortunately, none of these contribute anything to his notability. Look at WP:BIO#Specific_examples_of_sources; is he the subject of any such sources? It should be obvious that he isn't. Does he meet ("at a bare minimum") all of the basic criteria? It should be obvious that he doesn't. Perhaps your fundamental complaint is therefore that Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are artificially high, and that may or may not be the case, but until those policies are changed you can't expect to add an article in such flagrant defiance of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.187.248 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikipedia has a notability category. For example, I am not notable enough for Wikipedia, so I would suspect you are not notable either. But then we haven't had open source works on the Internet in our own names, or created a music album, or contributed to open source programming projects, or been part of a major company like Apple Computers, or anything else like that. Which I can understand why you or I wouldn't be notable, but Mr. Crawford has a lot more stuff on the Internet than you or I have, and has done more than you or I have. In fact I believe I said let the Wikipedia community decide this, but you've ignored that and appointed yourself dictator of what is notable or not instead of letting Wikipedia decide. So have the vandals that vandalized this article and helped you place a deletion template on it and make taken the law into their own hands. All I did was revert vandalism, and provide links on the Internet for why Michael Crawford is notable as far as I can understand, but unlike you I leave it up to the Wikipedia community to decide the ultimate fate of this article. I have done my best to make sure this article has factual information and follows Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them. --Thomas Hard 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the only real problem with this article is that its topic is not notable, and Wikipedia only contains articles for notable topics as a matter of general editorial policy. I apologise for the endless repetition of this point but you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand or even acknowledge the idea that Wikipedia has a notability policy and that this article trivially fails to satisfy it. It is perfectly acceptable for there to be a Michael Crawford "fan page" somewhere on the internet, but this (or any other encyclopedia) is not the place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.110.220 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you non-notable is that nobody finds your work interesting or useful enough to have written about it, or about you, anywhere other than on kuro5hin. You can write as much as you want, "publish" it wherever you like, but if no newspaper, magazine, journal, reputable web site or other independent source makes reference to it then you have not achieved notability. To be notable is to have been noted by something, by someone, somewhere; just because your work exists in a tightly-knitted vacuum of dense self-reference does not mean that you are as important as you believe you are. Nobody has ever, does ever or will ever want to look you up in an encyclopedia, which trivially justifies deletion of a putative encyclopedia entry for you. Yes, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, which is the only kind of resource for which the inclusion of a page about you could be reasonably justified. Read and understand WP:NOTE if you're confused.
- As I said, a lot of open source works are self published and Wikipedia does have an exception for open sourced works. I am also not Michael Crawford, and I am looking up references to him on the Internet to complete this article. Admins can compare the IP of my account and Michael's account to verify that. The only real problem with this article is the number of people vandalizing it, one of whom is American Virgo, and some anon IPs. I think that the Wikipedia community will straighten this out. Almost everyone opposed to this article has vandalized it in some way, if anyone bothers to look at the history, and some of them are personal attacks on Mr. Crawford. The edits made by most of those against this article are not even following Wikipedia guidelines, and they are being reverted. --20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of the external links in the article there is not a single one that doesn't go to a page written by Crawford or to a self publishing media site or a mailing list archive. There is absolutely nothing notable about Crawford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Virgo (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was talking about the links in this article and that I listed above that are not on his web site. Calling someone a name like that is not NPOV and is a personal attack and discouraged on Wikipedia. You'll do well to remember that. Just like the vandals that added Michael Crawford was from the Batman school of touching junk are also personal attacks and got reverted. The content of this article is verifiable, and incorrect, personal attacks, blankings, etc that are against Wikipedia rules have been removed. --Thomas Hard 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Many" are not links to his sites? "Some" may be? Of his 12 edits, 10 are him adding links to his own sites (oggfrog, geometricvisions, goingware, vancouverdiaries, hydrogenbomb), one is him then correcting a typo in one of those links, and one is him reverting an edit that called him a cunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.169.36 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Many of the links are not to his sites, some may be but not all of them. --Thomas Hard 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What started this whole article
editSomeone seemed to think that Michael David Crawford was notable enough to put on this page but didn't want to create a Wikipedia article on him. I thought maybe MDC was notable enough for an article. If I am wrong, no harm no foul, I'll just learn from it. I just want someone who isn't an anon IP with ties to vandalism to clarify it for me. --Thomas Hard 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Notable Links
editMichael Crawford is cited as expert on Macsbug
Michael Crawford's Album
Michael Crawford quotes on open source software
BeBits profile on Michael Crawford he wrote worldservices SDK for BeOS
Michael Crawford is published on Healthyplace.com
Michael Crawford contributes to Zoolib open source programming
Michael Crawford got an article published on Linux load generators
Michael is quoted by a UCSD professor
Friend of Professor David A. Lyons
Lou Thompson links to Michael's Goingware tips page
Mindview links to Michael as a C++ expert
Poppyware lists Michael as a resource
Functional Science lists Michael as a programming resource
The web sites are reliable sources on open source material, of which are referenced to show the notable references of Mr. Crawford. If not the management of those sites would have rejected it. Rejecting these reliable sources is like rejecting any open source site like Wikipedia itself. I could have found more but I was too busy reverting vandalism for this article by Mr. Virgo and anonymous IP vandals that it cut into my time for research. --Thomas Hard 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll go link by link:
- Michael Crawford is cited as expert on Macsbug
- Simply a link to one of his pages with Macintosh programming tips. This doesn't establish notability.
- Michael Crawford's Album
- A self publishing music site. They accept uploads from anyone and thus can't provide notability.
- Michael Crawford quotes on open source software
- An archive of mailing list traffic. Not notable at all.
- BeBits profile on Michael Crawford he wrote worldservices SDK for BeOS
- A personal profile written by Crawford.
- Michael Crawford is published on Healthyplace.com
- The closest to a link that would actually provide notability. However it appears they simply republish anything on the subject they can.
- Michael Crawford contributes to Zoolib open source programming
- Crawford is a minor contributor to a relatively unkown open source software project. Not at all notable.
- Michael Crawford got an article published on Linux load generators
- Another website that will publish any article they can, this simply can't prove notability.
- Michael Crawford is cited as expert on Macsbug
- I'm not going to go through the rest but simply summarize them as personal pages which happen to link to Crawford. Mr. Hard you simply can't come up with anything that proves that this biography belongs on Wikipedia. --American Virgo 23:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You put those sites through a mental filter because of your biases towards Mr. Crawford due to your vandalism. There are more sites that cite him, and you've ignored some of the ones on this list about as well that are credible. Here are some more:
Matt Bruice who interviewed Mr. Crawford
Michael D. Crawford gave a speech at Machack 2003
Someone notes that his source code is based on Michael Crawford's code for a BeOS application
A consultant directory that Crawford is listed in
Michael Crawford is listed as a BeOS master
Michael Crawford is listed as a software debugger
Michael Crawford's Goingware page is listed in a celebrity link page
--Thomas Hard 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thomas, I hate to break it to you, but they're right, (even if they've been obnoxious and committed vandalism). These just aren't notable second sources. You need to find something like an article in Wired or some other published source that talks about Michael and his contributions more substantially than just a mentioning his name. Piling on additional instances where his name appears isn't going to help either. I have no prejudice in this and I have to agree that these aren't noteworthy mentions. Torc2 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Torc2, how about an article about me at Linux.com? Linux Quality Database: One man's quest for kernel quality. Also, while it's not published, I have received a great deal of email in response to my essays on mental illness, for example that they've brought people - more than one - back from the brink of sucide, and convinced others to seek psychiatric treatment. Also, I was told by a mental health worker that my essay Living with Schizoaffective Disorder is on a reading list that's distributed by the California Department of Mental Health. MichaelCrawford 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- See, now that's a good secondary source. The external links on the article should be just that, the link to Healthyplace, and maybe one or two biographical links. The rest is all irrelevant. I think that gives the best shot for this article making it through the AfD. Torc2 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I wanted someone to explain it to me that didn't have a history of vandalization or ties to a vandal. I would have found more, but I was too busy reverting. If I can research more links I will. I spent some time with my family last night and I just woke up to check for messages. I can really use the experience with this, so I can contribute more to Wikipedia and other sites. I have a better idea what to look for now. So far all I used was Google and I haven't tried other search engines yet. Maybe the vote for deletion was immature and they should have waited until the research was done to see if MC is notable. --Thomas Hard 11:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- See, now that's a good secondary source. The external links on the article should be just that, the link to Healthyplace, and maybe one or two biographical links. The rest is all irrelevant. I think that gives the best shot for this article making it through the AfD. Torc2 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Torc2, how about an article about me at Linux.com? Linux Quality Database: One man's quest for kernel quality. Also, while it's not published, I have received a great deal of email in response to my essays on mental illness, for example that they've brought people - more than one - back from the brink of sucide, and convinced others to seek psychiatric treatment. Also, I was told by a mental health worker that my essay Living with Schizoaffective Disorder is on a reading list that's distributed by the California Department of Mental Health. MichaelCrawford 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thomas, I hate to break it to you, but they're right, (even if they've been obnoxious and committed vandalism). These just aren't notable second sources. You need to find something like an article in Wired or some other published source that talks about Michael and his contributions more substantially than just a mentioning his name. Piling on additional instances where his name appears isn't going to help either. I have no prejudice in this and I have to agree that these aren't noteworthy mentions. Torc2 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Crawford provided some more links for us on the deletion topic:
mind.org.uk a schizoaffective disorder resource page Depressive Disorders Support Group successfulschizophrenia.org Schizoaffective Disorder Demystified Maija Haavisto's medical links Medicine Online PsychLinks
Contract Employees Newsletter publishes one of Michael's emails
Quayle Consulting writes an article and cites Michael as a source
One of Michael's works on Silicon Valley is cited and reviewed
College C++ material that cites Michael's notes as a reference in a PDF file
An article on music copyright that cites Michael D. Crawford
Copyright policy site lists Michael's article as a reference in notes
Free Music download site quotes Michael D. Crawford
MSN list's Michael David Crawford's album for sale and download MSN is a reliable source
A sanitarium letter review of Michael David Crawford
Last.FM Polish site lists Michael David Crawford's songs
I just found these links:
A booklet that references Michael's page on Schizoaffective Disorder
Michael's story is listed as a success for schizophrenia
Stumbleupon submission of Michael's healthyplace article Not Digg but close
Medicine Online list's Michael's page as experience with the disorder
Someone notice's Michael's article on schizoaffective disorder and gets informed and recommends it
Del.icio.us link to Michael's page, by someone else, 11 other user's voted it up
--Thomas Hard 12:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Article Revisions
editCleaned up the external links section by removing unnecessary links and adding links to Crawford's personal weblog and a 2001 Linux.com article referencing him. --American Virgo 04:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the links section a bit more and reordered it. I beleive that we have (barely) satisfied WP:NOTE at this point. The reordering was to reinforce that point. If I had to choose, I would vote to keep at this point. 71.205.13.162 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Many Links are Old and Broken. I'll Fix Them.
editSorry to just disappear out of the discussion in my user talk page. My work has been very hectic lately, and I have not been getting enough sleep.
Thanks a million for digging this up out of the deleted article archives.
I checked some of the existing links only to found that they met with 404 errors, or that the linked host did not even result. But in most cases the original linked-to content has just been moved. Few of those who publish websites understand what 301 Redirects are, or of the importance of installing them.
A expect that a day or so with a search engine and I can fix most of those link.
Someone asserted above:
What makes you non-notable is that nobody finds your work interesting or useful enough to have written about it, or about you, anywhere other than on kuro5hin.
That's not actually true.
I am easily able to verify by analyzing my web server logs that vast numbers of people read my articles and essays every single day. They link to my articles from their websites, from message boards and from their weblogs. My professional colleagues in the software industry quite commonly link to my technical or business articles from their own companies' websites. I get a whole bunch of email every single day from readers who are grateful for what I wrote.
That guy asserts that no one writes about my work anywhere but kuro5hin because without a doubt he is one of the Kuro5hin trolls who like to give me a hard time. He himself does not write about my work anywhere else but Kuro5hin. Were he to visit other places on the Internet, he would readily find other places where people discuss my work.
The Kuro5hin trolls quite commonly assert that no one finds my work interesting or useful, but my own experience is that many write to me to tell me that my articles helped them out in ways that no other written material - on the Internet or in dead-tree form - was able to. I'm completely cool with a single individual pointing out that he personally does not find my work interesting and useful. But what I am not down with is for that individual to assert that no one at all finds my work interesting and useful, for no other reason than that he himself does not like my writing.
For the Kuro5hin trolls to assert that I am not notable is just like it would be for Ron Paul to assert that Barack Obama is not notable. The Kuro5hin trolls have an axe to grind with me, as one of my most-common activities is to point out to those of my fellow Kuro5hin members who work in the software industry that I regard them as total slackers, that I regard the software industry in general as completely corrupt, and that they would do well to heed my well-thought-out advice as to how to write code so we can put an end to such things as viruses and the wholesale theft of entire SQL databases full of credit card numbers.
They don't like it when I tell them all that they are a bunch of lazy, shiftless no-good louts.
I can see how my criticism of my fellow Kuro5hin members would irritate the Hell out of them, but that does not mean that I am not notable in the eyes of anyone else.
I think I know how to recover my password now. I'll give that a try sometime soon. MichaelCrawford 50.131.200.103 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)