User talk:Inkpaduta
Leave messages here.
3 albums
[edit]Could you please explain to me your reasoning for having "Half Life (3 album) and two other albums" deleted? I wouldn't be bothering you if the discussion links provided weren't red links. Regards, Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Geoffrey of Monmouth
[edit]Can I quibble with your insertion of the same text in every article connected with Geoffrey of Monmouth? It's of course true that Geoffrey didn't write trustworthy history, but in most cases his material is carefully labelled as legend or tradition or medieval literature. For example, the article on Cassivellaunus has a "history" section based on Caesar and other classical sources, and a "legend" section dealing with Geoffrey and Welsh traditions. Mentioning how unreliable Geoffrey is in the "history" section is irrelevant and muddies the waters between history and legend, which is I assume the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve. Also, the quote from William of Newburgh you're using refers only to Geoffrey's material from Vortigern on, but you're inserting it into articles on characters before Vortigern, which also undermines your point. --Nicknack009 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, an awful lot of Geoffrey's characters, like Cassivallaunus or Carausius, are historical characters with legends added. Arvirargus is a legendary character with a story partly based on a historical figure, Caratacus, and a name stolen from Juvenal. Others, like Dunvallo Molmutius and Samuil Penessil, are entirely legendary characters with names stolen from Dark Age kings. Belinus and Brennius are Gauls co-opted from Roman history. Some, like Leir and Arthur, have no historical basis at all that we know of, but their literary history is fascinating. Some of Geoffrey's kings probably don't deserve their own articles, and should stay on the list of legendary kings of Britain. Others demand a little discussion on their historical counterparts' articles, under the heading of legend. A few deserve their own articles as legendary/literary characters. Work to clear this up is ongoing. --Nicknack009 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since there is argument as to whether or not Geoffrey of Monmouth accurately related historical events in his works, shouldn't references to his arguable contributions remain in place but be cited accordingly? (See WP:CITE) I can't successfully argue that we, as Wikipedia editors, are authorities on the accuracy of a published reference work; that's up to people with "Ph.D." after their names to hash out. Alan 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Roadcruft
[edit]Well, I guess I finally nailed my colors to the mast -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999. Did I go too far? Or not far enough? Edeans 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Phil Barker
[edit]I've updated the article. Barker is of sufficient notability to be kept, as he is one of the significant figures in the development of historical wargaming, and therefore an important precursor to the current historical computer game industry. This was not obvious from what I wrote, but I sort of assumed that someone would come along eventually and fill out the details. m.e. 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there sources you can cite ? — presumably Slingshot or Miniature Figurines. Also his rule books and army lists have introductions.
Is your information first hand ? — no, this does not involve any original research. Barker lives in England and I was in Australia (now Hong Kong). I have never met him.
Have there been magazine articles or interviews? — probably...
Are there respected websites in wargaming ? — probably.
I've been out of wargaming for many years, so I am not in touch with the detailed evidence.
For references, see Wargames Research Group. m.e. 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I added some references to Fabral. If you think that they are enough to establish notability, could you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabral? --Eastmain 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127
[edit]I don't think you're quite right here. There were reliable sources, and they were verifiable. The issue was with notability, and many people (myself included) feel that a state highway is notable because it's a state highway. While I disagree with you, I believe you and some of the other "delete" voters have a valid point that should be discussed, but I don't think that trying to AfD road articles to prove a point is the way to go. It's just not going to work. I suggest gathering up some of the people who agree with you and checking out the dispute resolution process to try and work out with the people in the Roads project just what makes a certain road notable and what doesn't. Just my two cents...I don't want to see this get ugly. (for the record, there's absolutely nothing wrong with getting other people who share your opinion to offer their support on an AfD) --UsaSatsui 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, you need to work to change consensus, and the way to do that isn't in AfDs, because people are going to defend their articles there, and it's much harder to get a keep than a delete. Don't get too hung up on your own interpretation of what's notable...Even if you're sure you're 100% right, consensus can strike you down, and there's always ignore all rules. My suggestion remains to try dispute resolution. If you need help with it, I'll do what I can, but don't expect too much support from me (remember, I disagree with you, I'm just more interested in seeing this resolved than being "right"). --UsaSatsui 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have provided sources for all Miss Venezuela contests 1999-2006 (the ones for which articles exist). If you think them to be sufficient to allow us to give the articles a chance (as they were nominated only hours after their creation), could you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela 2001? Thanks, Black Falcon 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For your consideration
[edit]Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 (2nd) -- cheers. MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
BLP of Fred Alan Wolf
[edit]Hi Inkpaduta,
Last February, you added a Newsweek quote describing Dr. Wolf as being "on the fringes of mainstream science" and attributed the quote to Newsweek. As "fringe" is a pejorative term and must be carefully sourced in the context of WP:BLP, and as I have been unable to verify your quote (see talk page at What the Bleep do we know, I am posting here to let you know that I am removing the statement immediately, until we can verify the source. It is possible that my searches of Google News, the Newsweek archives and the www (all of which have failed to identify the quote) are wrong, but I thought I'd leave this note in hopes that you can help us find a verifyable source for the quote.
Thanks riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fyi, I have found a better reference (Wolf says: "I work in fringe areas myself, and understand..." and am fixing the reference...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)