User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

ArbCom request

Hello Erik, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The President's Room

Content was taken from www.senate.gov, the official Web site of the US Senate. The US Senate is a component of the federal government. Per Copyright status of work by the U.S. government "A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."[1] The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government,[2] but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[3] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright."" Please reverse the speedy delete. If you have further concerns, please open a RfD discussion. Rillian (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Rillian, thanks for the note. I realize that work produced by government employees may be public domain, but that doesn't mean that everything on a .gov website is unencumbered by copyright; see Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works. In this case, I can't find anything on the virtual tour that you copied from that indicates the status of that work, so I don't know that we can assume it wasn't, for example, done by a contractor, etc. Can you find anything? Perhaps I'm way out in the weeds; I can follow up with this at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems or someplace if you think I've got this wrong. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, note Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the Senate web site, "Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." There are no notices to contrary on the online pages related to "The President's Room" or in the [PDF brochure about the room. It is not my intent that the Wikipedia article be a simple copy of the text from the Senate web site, but was using that text as a starter before editing and enhancing the article (prior to its deletion). And of course, happy to add "Include-USGov" attribution template once the article is restored. Cheers Rillian (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah; thanks—I couldn't find that. Apologies! Regarding {{Include-USGov}}, my understanding is that such a thing is "required" by the guideline until all verbiage is sufficiently rewritten; is it your intention to rewrite everything? I hate these little notices but if you want me to undelete it let me know. HaugenErik (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the last point. Should I recreate the page or will you be undeleting it? Rillian (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asking if you wanted me to undelete it, since it sounded like you might be saying you were going to be rewriting it anyway. I'll take your last comment as a "yes" and undelete it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Kalin.tastix & Kalin812

Hi, you may remember one of these users. Both have been blocked for block evasion. There's another sock at work: Dash812 (talk · contribs). Here's wikistalk report. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is suggestive. I'll try to keep an eye on it, or feel free to go to SPI. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thanks for the quick reply at AN/I and the article talk page on the Paul venter issue I raised. Since the AN/I thread has already been archived (wow, that's fast!), where else do you think I should take this for feedback? It's pretty clear that if I try to remove the sources he will likely revert again, which seems an unproductive thing for me to do at this point as I'd rather not engage in an edit war. The larger issue is that Paul for a long time has ignored guidelines and engaged in ownership behavior over articles he creates when it comes to issues of style. First it was headings, which he now seems to follow the guideline for but previously he would begin with h4 or h3 headings instead of h2. Then he would remove taxoboxes or other infoboxes when editors added them to articles he created. And still it's issues of style with images. And now I'm finding WP:RS and WP:NOR concerns so I'm beginning to wonder about his many articles. (Aside: over on Commons, it appears he's struggling to understand copyright violations, still.) Given the time, I could provide diffs for all the above, but Paul has never seemed willing to engage in any dispute resolution process. (A good place to start, though, would be the first sockpuppet case - one of my earlier introductions to him.) His correspondence is sometimes hostile to other editors, especially to those who question his choices or want to provide him direction to a relevant guideline or policy. Any insight would be appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm no expert in dealing with this sort of thing. There's things like RFC/U, but hopefully this won't come to that. Maybe a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arthropods? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: AE SMC/Fyunck

I never said it was a pattern of frivolity, only that it's a pattern of being bold. I wish I could have answered this at AE, but Sandstein had already gone ahead and closed the request with a one-month topic-ban two hours later. That was the maximum agreed by the two other admins (I didn't voice a specific opinion on that). If you're opposed to such a result, I suggest you bring it up at WT:AE. I'm not exactly comfortable with such a strict approach, either. From the looks of his talk page, yet another admin isn't, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But hopefully not of being too bold? I mean, if anything, it shows a pattern of bringing valid claims, and in that light one claim that was off (and he agreed it was off) doesn't seem so bad. Thanks for your note—I figured you might not have meant frivolity, so I wrote "or being 'too bold'"; sorry if I implied you necessarily meant "frivolity". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Sandstein, Gatoclass and Mr. Stradivarius thought it was too bold. I'm not sure, but as I said earlier, I shouldn't make any real claims in the case because I'm possibly involved in one of the underlying matters. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think any of them commented on whether the ANI thread you linked to was evidence of "too bold" behavior. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

AE

I replied there but may have to delete it because of the 500 word limit, so I will repeat it here.

Absolutely. "since you understand it much better than I do, maybe you should take the next crack at it" excludes anyone else who might want to "take the next crack". That comment belongs only and solely on the editor in question's talk page, not on the article or project talk page. This is basic talk page protocol.

The part that came before this,[1] "that sounds fine" is fine, but "I will leave it to others to implement" works, but "maybe you should" does not. Apteva (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No. It's fine. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good. Basically there are two methods of decision making, consensus and parliamentary. Neither allow directing comments to a participant. Parliamentary requires that all discussion is directed to the moderator/speaker. Consensus requires directing all comments to the group. Doing that allows everyone to be an equal participant. If someone wants to make "a request of another, in a collegial and constructive manner", the place to do that is on their talk page. This is just common courtesy, and what can be called "consensus 101". This is not a work place environment, it is a volunteer community. I am not here to be insulted or called out for anything, other than on my talk page. I expect to get yelled at by vandals, but those we deal with swiftly. I am here only to make constructive edits, and last I checked, there were still one or two (million?) corrections that need to be made. The current restrictions that I am under severely reduce my ability to help wikipedia, serve absolutely no purpose, and need to be removed, as soon as possible. All of them. Adding to them would just be even more laughable. Apteva (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically there are two methods of decision making, consensus and parliamentary. Neither allow directing comments to a participant.—No. When there are only two people in the room and one is asking the other to consider doing something, using the word "you" is normal behavior. Seeking sanctions against someone for doing this—as you have done—is completely ridiculous. Don't do it again. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia project/article talk pages are not chat rooms, and wherever "you" is used it is almost exclusively used inappropriately, not just by that editor, but by others as well. Are there other decision making methods that you are familiar with? (user talk pages are like chat rooms) I can think of one – dictatorial, but last I checked we use consensus. Consensus decision making has been around for about four hundred years now, and comments are never, ever directed to or about a participant in consensus decision making. I would not have brought that action unless it was protracted and other avenues had not been available. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Trying to ban the use of the second person on article talk pages is beyond quixotic. Are there other decision making methods that you are familiar with?—I already addressed this in my last note here. Adding to them would just be even more laughable.—Then please stop disruptively bringing frivolous AE requests so you are not given more sanctions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles deletion

Dear ErikHaugen,

I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 21:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do to help; I haven't looked closely enough to see if there's a personal attack here, and it looks like some other administrators are getting involved. I'll note, if you come back to read this, that if there are no reliable sources at this time then it is pretty unlikely that we can have an article about it. This encyclopedia really is only for subjects having reliable independent sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

PGP-Key

Hello ErikHaugen,
the RSA-part of your PGP-key you provide on your user-page is expired. Could you please renew it so it can be more usable? :-). --DaB. (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. Done—thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Trick-or-treating

Hi, I've noticed that you've edited the Trick-or-treating article recently. There's been a debate running for the last few days over the title of this article. Your input would be appreciated! — Smjg (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Trick-or-treating

Hi, I've noticed that you've edited the Trick-or-treating article recently. There's been a debate running for the last few days over the title of this article. Your input would be appreciated! — Smjg (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Marion County, West Virginia

While it is no Yoknapatawpha County, Marion County is a constant in the 1632 series. Indeed, an electronic catalog of the holdings of the Marion County Public Library is used as one of the guidelines for what an SF writer working in the series should expect to be available in Grantville. Marion County officials, equipment, etc. are mentioned on a regular basis. It may not seem like much, but these books have sold millions of copies; and it's a lot more presence than the typical West Virginia county has ever had in literature; Matewan comes closest, but of course that's a town, not a county. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Marion County (well, Mannington, at least) is significant to the 1632 series. But not vice versa. It's hardly mentioned in the stories AFAIK; there is very little "presence in literature" here. We can quibble all we want about this, though, the real question is: do you have any sources backing up this claim that the series is significant to the subject of the article? (The note in 1632's afterward is not relevant in the slightest for this question, of course.) If not, then it's unverifiable, so let's take it out of the article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's move this to a better forum: Talk:Mannington,_West_Virginia#1632_series ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Rorquals (oh sorry, I don't think you know what those are)

So I'm misguided, am I? Did you have to look that up? Is that because you know nothing about rorquals? Why do you run your mouth about subjects you apparently know little to nothing about? It appears to be an epidemic among wikipedians. Google something and pretend to know something about it only to be exposed as a fraud. That's adorable. Perhaps you should stick to doing edits intended for bots? Don't post on my talk page again. SHFW70 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Beg pardon? What do you think I don't know about, and why? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Surveillance Camera Man for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Surveillance Camera Man is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance Camera Man until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ErikHaugen. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damaged beyond repair.
Message added 01:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Leon Danielian article deletion

Hi, You have completely deleted the article Leon Danielian that I have created yesterday. I have spent more than an hour writing the article and it is completely gone on the grounds of "copyright violation". I have no idea which parts you did not like, but it would have been better if you had left at least some parts of it to develop on. Could you please return my work back. GuggiePrg (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

GuggiePrg, thanks for taking the time to write this article, and I think we really ought to have an article on this subject, so I appreciate what you're doing.

• I have no idea which parts you did not like—it's not that I didn't like them; they were nice, it's just that a good chunk of the article was copied from other sources. For example, you wrote In 1959 he retired from the stage because of arthritis. This utexas.edu memoriam article has the line Mr. Danielian retired from the stage in 1959 because of arthritis, which is almost identical. Similarly for most(?) of the article. We simply can not do this; Wikipedia's servers, etc, are located in the US, which has, for better or worse, quite robust copyright law.
• it would have been better if you had left at least some parts of it to develop on—There wouldn't be much left. Most of what was left would be the part copied from Gaîté Parisienne (which would still require proper attribution, for example in your edit summary).
• Could you please return my work back.—No, I don't think I can restore it, again due to the legal issues. Although feel free to ask a different administrator to do it; someone might know more about copyright law and be able to help you. You may be able to find some of your prose in Google's cache for some amount of time if it is helpful to use it as an outline while rewriting this if you would like to do that. I've also restored the references at User:ErikHaugen/Leon Danielian so you don't need to fuss with those templates, at least. Please let me know if you think there's anything else I can restore.

Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have created a small text based on the previous full version at User:ErikHaugen/Leon Danielian. In case it does not violate the copyright law of your country please migrate it to the article section. Thanks! GuggiePrg (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for working on this! I've moved it to Leon Danielian. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Some questions for a senior wikipedian

As a senior Wikipedian supportive of the recent indefinite banning of a user for defending what appears to be Wikipedia core values, I would like to ask you a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers.

1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions?

2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say?

3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say, for example, that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support?

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

David F. Haight, [2] Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.” [3]

Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”.[4]

Adam Lucas, [5] writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."

But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work:

Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature.[6]

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today.[7]

Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post [8]

Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post [9]

Rudolph E. Tanzi,[10] Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post [11]

Neil Theise,[12] Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post [13]

All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose

Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake.

David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision

Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics

Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist [14]

Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian [15]

Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science

John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex

A final point

One other similar area where the sources are overwhelming concerns the well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact that Sheldrake is a biologist - a fact which his constantly removed. [16] contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. [17] [18] [19] [20]

Again, then, I would be grateful if you could answer the specific questions above in relation to this particular content.

I eagerly await your response. Thanks Barleybannocks (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You're basically pasting the same set of rhetorical questions and analysis of sources here that you have pasted elsewhere, over and over again. I feel like I've read this several times. An important point is that the ban is not because you believe these points or that you are making this case. It is that you make it in a disruptive manner. I don't have much opinion one way or the other about the changes to the article that you are crusading for. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

These are not rhetorical questions. On the contrary, the are very specific questions about general policy. I would be grateful if you, or some suitable senior wikipedian, could answer them. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

1.) pretty much (a) 3.) I haven't analyzed these sources, nor do I have time to go get, and then explain to you, an informed opinion. But, I'll try to think of some reasons why editors might not want to include a source or a statement supported by a reliable source in an article: perhaps it gives undue weight to that aspect of the subject of the article (see WP:UNDUE); perhaps other sources contradict the source in question; perhaps the statement is an inaccurate or for some reason misleading representation of all the sources, etc. You are inches away from being banned for discussing this subject because you refuse to drop issues like the ones you are bringing here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If the answer is, as you say (a) then here, only a test case I am familiar with, are 130,000 potential reliable sources for the straightforward fact that RS is a biologist. [21] Perhaps you could add it to the article and use, only if needed, a spirited defense of (a) as your basis for the addition. Good luck, and thanks for at least attempting to provide an answer to at least one of my questions. Be sure to let me know how (a) fares. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For every assertion like "I have 130000 RS to support claim X" some kind of analysis has to be done to answer the questions posed by WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS: does the preponderance of significant viewpoints in RS support claim X or is claim X a minority viewpoint? Does this claim belong in this article? In the lede even? The fact that you link to this search and say you have a potential 130k reliable sources lets me know that you probably aren't very good at doing that analysis. But in any case, I'll likely have to decline your plea to take up this crusade: I have no idea at this point if whatever change you are suggesting is appropriate; as I said I have no informed opinion here. I'll note, even, that on the first line of the article at this time, it says he is a biologist, so I don't even know what you are trying to change. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, no, the first line of the article doesn't say that. Here it is, "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author, lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, best known for advocating "morphic resonance", his idea that "memory is inherent in nature". Unsure what on earth you are talking about. Secondly, how can stating an undisputed fact (RS is a biologist) possibly constitute a breach of UNDUE WEIGHT or BALASP? This is not some theory, fringe or otherwise. This is a basic biographical fact about the subject of the article that is supported by hundreds of sources which just mention it in passing because the fact is well known in the world and not disputed outside the wikipedia talk page and perhaps a few blogs.

Thus, if I may: the kind of response you gave above is one of the fundamental problems with wiki in my opinion. That is, nobody bothers to read anything and just let's anything flow from their mouths (eg, biologist in the first line), while citing completely irrelevant policy (policy that couldn't possibly be relevant). Thus talk page discussions go on and on and on and on, rather than, say, ending with an acknowledgement that something is obviously the case and editing the article correspondingly. A further example is Guy threatening me with a ban for asking for the paragraph on Sokal to be amended in line with wiki policy. As usual complete nonsense was spouted with 101 nonsensical reasons given and policy twisted. How did it end? Some uninvolved editor happened by - saw that I was talking sense - saw that the other editors were waffling nonsense, and changed the article in exactly the way I had been advocating.[22], [23] Barleybannocks (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsure what on earth you are talking about.—I was using an extraordinarily large monitor when I wrote that, so the phrase "He was a biochemist and cell biologist" was on the first line of the article as it was rendered on my screen. That's right; "he was a ... biologist". 2nd sentence. Do you see that there? nobody bothers to read anything and just let's anything flow from their mouths (eg, biologist in the first line)—Oh bless your heart. Secondly, how can stating an undisputed fact (RS is a biologist) possibly constitute a breach of UNDUE WEIGHT or BALASP?—I think BALASP makes this pretty clear; if the fact is not a significant aspect of the subject of the article, then mentioning it, even if it is undisputed, breaches BALASP. Perhaps an example will help clarify the general principle: "Erik Haugen lives in California" is a true statement, but even if I can back it up with reliable sources or 1 million search results it still isn't going on California. while citing completely irrelevant policy—The policy I cited was relevant to the point I was making, which was merely that the decision about whether to include a fact in an article is not as simple as counting Google search results. Again, as I said, I have no idea if your search results contain a compelling argument for whatever change you are trying to make. This is at least partially because, again, I have no idea what change you are trying to make. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice this on your user page: Unfortunately no administrators have been willing to address this question – are you leaving this statement there? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'll make a note specifically mentioning your attempt and will provide a link to your answer. Re your stuff about "biologist" possibly not being relevant - LOL. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that I have never commented here about "biologist" being "relevant" or not to anything, right? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Rexzooly

This page is not about a person but the meaning behind a created name what was fiction but is now real and legal, I am still trying to understand wiki as its still very confusing, I created the name and have had many people ask me the meaning behind the name, this is why I have created a wiki about it, I also placed a very clear note at the bottom stating it was only about the meaning of the name not the creator of the name, if you felt it was placed wrong or worded wrong then please explain but don't just delete my work, you might think its easy to create something but others in the world its a little harder and I found it rude was deleted, did you even read the my talk page on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexzooly (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the main thing to understand is that for there to be a stand-alone Wikipedia article on something, it needs to have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Please click on that link for a discussion of what the terms in that phrase mean. Is "Rexzooly" discussed in newspapers, magazines, books, online or off-, etc? Believe me, I know how you feel. My article was deleted, too: Surveillance Camera Man. And that was about a subject covered in news articles and even written about on Boing Boing! In any case, I didn't mean to be rude and I'm sorry it felt that way. I know you spent some time on this and I would be happy to get the contents of the deleted article if you didn't save a copy of it and would like to host it on your own website or something. Please let me know! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The name was created by myself in the past and it is discussed and questions about its meaning and most people that I know first come to wiki to find the meaning of something, I will be creating a section on my website but sadly I don't away's have the money for that site to run and I wont run it when I die, I at first was not going to post it here but when requested by a good handful of people I felt maybe I should, since it was about the name and the history where the name came from I thought this would of been part of the terms of wiki, I am not someone great but I have had people that liked the name and wanting to know the meaning behind it and even a few thought about using it, for along time I kept the meaning to myself, if wiki is not for this kind of topic I not really sure why it is here. Thank you for explaining yourself but I am still at a loss with why the creation of this new name shouldn't be able to seed its history here, this is where people come and find meanings, the real meaning of this name might get lost down the line if its not documented on websites people trust if you know of a better and last longing website for this please point me there but I still hope to have it on wiki, the deletion of the older one is OK as it could of been layed out better and I was going to do that soon as I leaned how if you can also help me find a way to post it where it follows all the rules I willing to jump throw these loops -- Rexzooly (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For various reasons, Wikipedia is explicitly not about putting new things up to "seed"; it is about things that are verifiable in reliable sources, etc. You might try, if I may suggest my employer, Google sites for publishing such details about yourself? There are plenty of free ways to do this, but it really isn't the point of Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkstalk says... yes, Rexzooly, money is not a problem, nor is retention of the content on the internet after you are gone a problem. If you don't like http://blogger.com or making your own Google Plus account as suggested by Erik, you can use various offerings from other people. Wordpress (see http://wordpress.com for your needs) and places like http://tumblr.com are blogs where you can post your work with almost no restrictions (they pay for 100% of the costs and are popular enough to keep the data online forever... or at least, until the ten-kilometer-asteroid-strike wipes out industrial civilization). If you want more of a personal website, instead of a blog, you can try http://weebly.com which is free of charge, and easy to use, I've known people that had success that way.

  As to your main question, Wikipedia is strangely enough not for that sort of topic... because wikipedia is boring, in some ways... it is only supposed to have old stuff, or stuff that is old news, for the most part. Historical facts that were in the media, mostly. Rexzooly might belong here someday, once it becomes a historical fact documented by the press... wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and Rexzooly sounds like it has a bright future.  :-)   Perhaps we'll meet again, in other words. In the meantime, feel free to stick around, and work with us on other articles, if you like. It's kinda fun. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)