User talk:Metadigital

Welcome!

Hello, Metadigital, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Robert-stable2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert-stable2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Rob Bryanton

A tag has been placed on Rob Bryanton, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parerga and Paralipomena

You asked me why I deleted this. As far as I'm aware, I didn't. Click on the history tab of the relevant article, and you might be able to find out who did, or, if it was me, give me a link and I'll try and refresh my memory. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you may want to check that again. I show you deleted it 12:34, 7 March 2007 as a Copyvio. User: Alynna Kasmira had Prod'd it as such. Hopefully that will help jog your memory. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1421

Hi,

The info you added to 1421 is not a reference, though it may be valuable to have in the article if it were referenced. I removed it, but if you can add where you found out about Menzies getting an honourary degree, it could go back in the article as long as it meets WP:RS.

WLU 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (2) To let you know, talk pages are usually better to communicate with other wikipedians. I'm pasting your comments from the e-mail to reply:

Did you copy my edits to the "1421 Hypothesis" page? I spent about an hour typing all that in from the book, you know.

I did not. If you wish to recover your work, use the history tab to view one of the older versions of the page, and paste it into the appropriate page. I'll do it for you, here you go.

Are you suggesting that the contents of the book by Gavin Menzies is ALL unreliable? Even the fact that he states other (Chinese) corroborators AND his honorary doctorate from the University?

My personal opinion is that Gavin Menzies theory is pretty much all unsubstantiated bunk. That Chinese scholars wish to give him honorary degrees is up to them and in no way enhances his case. Granting a degree is not the same thing as publishing in a peer reviewed journal, and given what I've seen of the Chinese government's self-promotion agenda, I hardly consider it a reliable enahncement of the scholarly nature of the book. Menzies can say whatever he wants, until it is published in reliable sources, it's the same as me saying the Chinese are secretly Martians. The entire 1421 book is Menzies saying "hey, the Chinese COULD have discovered X, Y, Z, and here's something that could support my theory, if you follow the following chain of wild suppositions." Further, that information should be placed on the appropriate pages. The honourary degree should be on Menzies' page, the evidence on the 1421 hypothesis page.

So, these assertions are not printable UNTIL some third party confirms it? Because that seems completely against the whole point of the wikipedia. *I* can't check with the university (and I certainly can't be bothered to do it), yet no-one can know this fact because of this? Crazy.

See this section of WP:RS and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The only thing Menzies' book could be used for is to illustrate the claims within the book itself. It is of such dubious provence within academic circles, it's pretty much destroyed its own credibility. Wikipedia has five pillars, the first two of which are 'an encyclopedia', thus comprised of reliable material, and 'NPOV', so Menzies claims can't be dominant over all the articles he is related to.

Edit the comment to include an "allegedly", maybe, but deleting the edits in totality is just lazy and counter-productive (why should anyone contribute to this project if some others run around deleting all their work?)

You see it as lazy and counterproductive, I see it as maintaining the quality of the article. Frankly I don't see the point of that stuff on this page, as I said above, it should be in the 1421 hypothesis page and Menzies' own page. And Menzies saying something is evidence does not make it reliable evidence.

Further replies I would prefer on my talk page or the individual wiki talk pages.

Thanks,

WLU 18:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1421 (cont.)

Right. Here is why I was dismayed at your editing of my addition to the 1421 page. (I don't really see the benefit of separating the book form the hypothesis, but that is a secondary concern.)

I did not separate the two, that decision was made long before I edited the page. But, given the length of the page on the hypothesis, it makes sense - the book plus the hypothesis would be far too long. See Wikipedia:Article size.

I added some corroborating third-party evidence to SUPPORT the theory (which DNA evidence I have subsequently sourced in peer-reviewed science magazines), which you deleted. So you:

didn't read it,
read it and didn't understand it, or
read it and didn't like it because it didn't agree with your own views.

Or, and notice how I was courteous enough to warn you, and I'm not being a dick about it and am providing you with the rationale, I removed it because it was not appropriate to the page, then replied to your inquiries with my reasoning. Which state that it was not appropriate for the page, but could be placed on the hypothesis page. Unless you are talking about the links you put in the 'see also' section, which, as I stated before, should contain internal links only. I never said the information would not, should not, could not, will not be on the page, I just said, as policy says, it should not be in that particular section. Put it in the references. Oh, and thanks for insinuating I'm stupid, I appreciate that.

Any of which is evidence of poor editing.

Watch your civility, 'cause you can be blocked for civility issues. There will be people who disagree with you. I'm not fighting you over content, just over where you put it. Civility is important 'cause you are going to have to interact with editors. It's also useful 'cause it means you piss off one person enough, or enough people overall and you'll have an uphill struggle with every edit.

Witness that I have not passed a judgment on the actual hypothesis ANYWHERE. I was merely adding to the sum total of evidence, so that the knowledge of the subject could be improved. Everyone adding their edits might actually draw us to the discovery of whether this Menzies chap is just a very amateur historian (with a poor grasp of scientific method), or a complete quack. Any resolution will need to account for the evidence for and against.

We will never be drawn to any discovery, because wikipedia has a very strong policy of no original research. We report, we do not prove or disprove. Beyond very basic calculations, we can not manipulate data in any way. Policy gives you a very good sense of what can, and can not go on pages. If you are going to continue contributing to wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with them, as it will head off a lot of disagreements in the future with all serious editors.

Final note - As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. WLU 11:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Vice Chancellor

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Infobox Vice Chancellor, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 08:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bryanton

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Rob Bryanton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]