User talk:Pop Secret

Welcome!

Hello, Pop Secret, 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! Ziggurat 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Daniel.Bryant

Firstly, thank you for your analysis of my contributions - it will help me improve in the future, no doubt. However, you don't have suffrage for this election (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote). Unfortunately, this means your vote is disqualified; I have moved it to the talk page, rather than removing it as some other candidates/election officials have done, because I believe in transparency, and if people want to make an informed decision they should have all viewpoints available to them. I hope you don't mind, and if you have any questions or issues, feel free to leave me a note on my user talk page and I'll be happy to discuss them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entitled to my opinion restored

The page I'm entitled to my opinion has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate it for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. GRBerry 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Wheeler

Yeah, I love this policy stuff. Good idea to move it off of AFD, though.

I believe that we, as editors should not be passing judgment on whether coverage is merited or faddish or whatever. I don't think that Paris Hilton or any of her socialite friends should get as much coverage as they do, but they do, so they're notable. Likewise, whether or not I think that Wheeler deserves coverage, she's gotten some, so it appears to me that she, too, is notable.

The definition of trivial (or as I put it, neglible) coverage in an article is defined at WP:N, and basically it just refers to the depth of coverage in an article. If all there is in a source is a name in the middle of a list of names, that's obviously trivial. If it's a feature article about the subject, it's obviously not. When you get a paragraph or two, I think that's where judgement calls come into play about whether or not a specific article can be used to justify notability. Although the guideline does say that a sufficient number of trivial mentions may be enough to confer notability, as well.

Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other about the Wheeler article, but I enjoyed this chance to talk policy.Chunky Rice 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Donkey punch AFD

If there are any arguments to delete, it immediately becomes not a speedy keep candidate. Check WP:CSK for more info on that. --Core desat 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is making me crave some microwave popcorn.

Unfortunately, we seem to be completely out. Orville Redenbacher's better anyway, although arguably the improvement in quality is not worth the extra cost. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that as well, but unfortuantely I have diverticulitis and can no longer eat popcorn. :( Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]