User talk:Scientizzle/Archive 2

Welcome!

You've reached User talk:Scientizzle/Archive 2, an archive of User talk:Scientizzle. Please do not edit this page. You're encouraged to leave a message on my regular talk page and link to the archived discussion. Directory: Archives March 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – April 2007 May 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – May 2008 May 2008 – July 2009 August 2009 – Thanks I'm still on my Wikibreak, just checking from a library computer, and I noticed that you reverted some vandalism to my userpage. I appreciate that. I noticed that the vandal was claiming both you and WilliamThweatt were my socks... any idea what that's all about? The only page I can think of that all three of us edit is Intelligent Design (and related pages). In any case, thanks.  :) Kasreyn 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Glad I could help. The vandal didn't appreciate that WilliamThweatt & I reverted his/her vandalism and expressed it in the sockpuppet comment. Just another IP vandal... -- Scientizzle 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Julio Vidal I have expanded and added extensive references to the Julio Vidal article, and removed the {{verify}} and {{notability}} tags. If you have further concerns, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks.—Chidom talk  08:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Nice work. I've no concerns at all. -- Scientizzle 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Brendan Loy Thanks for the appreciation. Without going into too much detail, I was interested because a fellow student of Loy's at Notre Dame had shown me the blog--I don't mean to start any more drama, but there are at least a few dedicated Notre Dame readers who find the blog funny, rather than informative. (Although the student who showed me had initially seen it on a Notre Dame message board, so I don't suppose this would be news to Mr. Loy.) To be fair, I don't know that any of those people were contributing to the discussion here, although I don't know that they weren't, either. Since then I've read the blog sporadically (but have never commented), and saw the discussion of the entry on his blog. I actually have edited Wikipedia entries before, but at the request of the friend who first showed me the blog, started a different account to comment (as my regular username and page aren't particularly anonymous). Nautikale 22:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC) thanks Scientizzle, thanks for your posting. I am working on what you said, I do not wish to spam the site, just want to provide a little information on the foundation. I have supporting articles that talk about IAFF, which I will be posting. Thanks for your help, any other suggestions would be much appreciated... Stevenc317 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Sure, no problem. I'll keep an eye on your progress & help as much as I can. -- Scientizzle 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Comment from User:GreatDay Dear Scientizzle, I have read you work and am particularly impressed with your article on Trace Amine. Why you continue to defend the honor of Brendan Loy is puzzling. The person in addition to the subject matter are both completely beneath you. I apologize if this message is considered vandalism. If so, please tell me how to send messages properly. GreatDay 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks, I'm glad you liked the trace amine article. You correctly sent me a message by leaving this comment on my talk page. I don't know what you mean by "defend[ing] the honor of Brendan Loy". All I've done is revert vandalism to the article (yours included--you've vandalized it twice now) and vote "keep" (citing valid Wikipedia policies and guidelines) on a seemingly bad-faith deletion nomination. I've reverted vandalism on hundreds of articles and have a large number of often-vandalized articles on my watchlist, including Brendan Loy. Why do you even care if there's an article about Loy on Wikipedia? "The person in addition to the subject matter are both completely beneath" me? What? Why is this personal to you? You haven't shown much in the way of positive additions to Wikipedia, so it's hard believe that you're concerned much about the "scholarly purpose of this site". Your contributions show that you've (as this username) essentially only participated in complaining at Talk:Brendan Loy, actively vandalizing the article, a POV addition to (admittedly flawed) Prolotherapy, a nonsense addition at Talk:Penis game, and a nominal comments at Talk:Prolotherapy & Talk:Newt Gingrich—hardly a great resume. You and others (I'd bet IP:24.147.179.79 is also you as very similar content was added) continuing to vandalize the Loy article is not going to get it deleted. It's just bitter and puerile. If you're actually interested in positively contributing to this project, the please check out the welcome links at the top of your talk page. If you're not, just go away. -- Scientizzle 17:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Response from Scientizzle Dear Scientizzle, I have read you work and am particularly impressed with your article on Trace Amine. Why you continue to defend the honor of Brendan Loy is puzzling. The person in addition to the subject matter are both completely beneath you. I apologize if this message is considered vandalism. If so, please tell me how to send messages properly. GreatDay 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Replies from GreatDay This is a copy of my statement above comments from User:GreatDay are in italics my responses are in green I don't know what you mean by "defend[ing] the honor of Brendan Loy". All I've done is revert vandalism to the article (yours included--you've vandalized it twice now) and vote "keep" (citing valid Wikipedia policies and guidelines) on a seemingly bad-faith deletion nomination. I've reverted vandalism on hundreds of articles and have a large number of often-vandalized articles on my watchlist, including Brendan Loy. --This is slightly disingenuous isn't it? After all, you have (I believe) admitted to being friends with the guy? Otherwise why is it on your watch list? The deletion request is not in bad faith, no one, you included has put forward a good case as to why it should stay, he is clearly NOT notable. It's not at all disingenuous. I am what I would describe as a friendly acquaintance with Loy. The article was put on my watchlist after I discovered that, over a couple of days, blatant vandalism had gone 7 & 22 hours, respectively, without being reverted. I have hundreds of other articles watchlisted, too, for similar reasons. Additionally, since I do know something of the man, I've been able to edit the article some for accuracy. I honestly don't care if Loy has a Wikipedia article, but I'm not going to let blatant vandalism sit on any article, including this one, without being corrected. Also, it is not clear that Loy is non-notable. Otherwise the article would have been readily deleted. As I stated in the AfD, there seems to be ample sourced material that establishes sufficient notability according to the consensus notability guidelines of Wikipedia, especially after the article was more clearly sourced and Loy was featured in Spike Lee's recent documentary. Why do you even care if there's an article about Loy on Wikipedia? "The person in addition to the subject matter are both completely beneath" me? What? Why is this personal to you? You haven't shown much in the way of positive additions to Wikipedia, so it's hard believe that you're concerned much about the "scholarly purpose of this site". Your contributions show that you've (as this username) essentially only participated in complaining at Talk:Brendan Loy, actively vandalizing the article, a POV addition to (admittedly flawed) Prolotherapy, a nonsense addition at Talk:Penis game, and a nominal comments at Talk:Prolotherapy & Talk:Newt Gingrich—hardly a great resume. --aren't we on a superiority kick today? based on your resume I guess you've earned it but seriously lighten up Superiority kick? You claimed in your vandalism that you were concerned about the "scholarly purpose" of Wikipedia, yet haven't made any indication through your other edits that that is true. I'd rather have you and every other user ditch the vandalism and contribute positively to the project. You and others (I'd bet IP:24.147.179.79 is also you as very similar content was added) continuing to vandalize the Loy article is not going to get it deleted. It's just bitter and puerile. If you're actually interested in positively contributing to this project, the please check out the welcome links at the top of your talk page. If you're not, just go away. --you'd bet wrong, most of us who go to school with the kid are flabbergasted that he's featured. Many have commented. I'll readily take back my speculation that you & IP:24.147.179.79 are one and the same. No problem. I suspected (from the vandal IPs) that this campaign of vandalism and the nomination for deletion was largely irked Notre Dame students. If so, there's been an overall disappointing lack of mature dialogue; I would have expected more from students of an institution such as Notre Dame. So please, if you would because you haven't yet. Why is THIS particular article on your watch list? Without resorting to ad hominem attacks on me (deflecting the issue). Why would someone with so much to offer in the field of sciences, defend the honor of someone who chases tornados and writes a freaking blog.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreatDay (talk • contribs) . I'm not sure what you're reffering to as an "ad hominem attack", here. Is it the "bitter and puerile" statement? I think puerile is dead-on for most of the crap that's been added by vandals to this article, including your addition. The bitter part is more speculation that there exists a not-insignificant personal vendetta against Loy for reasons beyond my comprehension. (Is it that he's a USC fan? Kinda dorky? What?) I covered the watchlist issue above, but why does it matter? You didn't answer my question as to why you even care about this article. I'm sorry if I don't buy your transparently disingenuous concern for my slumming with a subject "beneath" me. Convince me that this isn't just a sour grapes thing. Look, I actually don't really care if you get back to me about this. I'd rather just move on--I've got a lot of work to do in real life. I hope you'll put this past you, too, and become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. (And seriously, with all honesty, Brendan Loy will not get deleted until a sizable contingent of regular editors—with editing experience, knowledge of policies and guidelines, and at least a smidgen of 'pedia street cred— vote to delete on an AfD. A flood of anon IPs, single purpose accounts, and potential sock puppets carry little wieght in what is designed to be a community-driven effort at establishing a consensus, not a vote. You could become one of those regular editors and, if it's still really important to you, you could nominate the article again.) Shall we agree to disagree on the subject of Brendan Loy? If you decide to become a valued contributor to Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ask me for advice if you need help with anything.-- Scientizzle 02:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC) THANKS!! At least someone knows I'm not lying.~~User:Hempfel Woah! Easy on the exclamation points there, bro! (I removed all but two, hope you don't mind...) My comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aha Variable will hopefully foster discussion. I really think the article is poorly written--it's unsourced and exists as something of a math lesson rather than an encyclopedia article. It's easy to see why the nominator could think it's a hoax. I find the etymology claim to be dubious, too. But it certainly doesn't appear to be a bad-faith article creation. I'd suggest finding some reputable sources--check out the Google Scholar link I posted (link #4). -- Scientizzle 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Toc Hi Scientizzle, it wasn't causing a browser problem for me, but I know it does for others, and it makes the page look very crowded when there are images around it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) hello well im sorry but im right. She's my aunts first cousins and her last name was Cavalleri. Kristin, her dad Uncle Dennis, the whole crew, Cavalleri.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KmsTigers02 (talk • contribs) . It may be true that Kristin Cavallari's name was Cavalleri, but unless you can find a source that meets WP:V & WP:RS to back up your claim, the name should stay matching all the sources. This is a prime case where Wikipedia policy is clear: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -- Scientizzle 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) thanks Thanks scientizzle, i apologies for my error, i am new to this BDrube 07:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Sure, no problem...the housekeeping tags are meant to help, so it gets very frustrating when editors remove them without making the necessary changes. -- Scientizzle 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks again will try to improve BDrube 08:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Talk:Brendan Loy Thanks for the response, your right of course I am going on a bit. Iv made my point, and since I am trying to bring the Jake article up to good article status a bit of maturity on my part wouldnt go amiss.Stevenscollege 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for getting back to me. Best of luck on your work at Jake Gyllenhaal. I'll see if I can find some time to peer review it, too... -- Scientizzle 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Hi there. My original message to potentially interested parties was rather poorly worded. There was no allegation against them, just an invitation to comment. My apologies if the message fazed you slightly. Nunquam Dormio 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) No problem...thanks for the message. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. -- Scientizzle 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Whew...53??? Your user page is POPULAR for vandalism! Kukini 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC) I know! I do a sizable amount of RC vandal fighting, but I always seem to catch the vindictive ones that go straight for the user page (and often come back days later to do it again...) and about 10% go down my list of created articles to vandalize them, too. -- Scientizzle 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, and thanks for reverting the vandalism. Much appreciated. -- Scientizzle 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Hey, my pleasure. I do RFC work as well. I actually find it sorta relaxing in a way. I know...I need therapy or something! Peace, Kukini 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Talk:Footmen Frenzy Could you please read my added comments on Talk:Footmen Frenzy. It is a notable article as are many of the other 1.4 million articles on wikipedia. Thank you. --Adam Wang 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the message. Let me address your comment directly. I'd like to add that this is a rather popular game and has made it on the Battle.Net Hall of Fame as Third. In fact, it is definately more popular than the second place game. There are international tournuments for Footmen Frenzy and "Footies" has always been a stample in custom games in Warcraft because it was one of the the first games out. I think it is notable enough. There are many "un-nontable" articles out there, and I don't think Footmen Frenzy is one of them. Here's what I got after pressing Alt-X List of untitled nobility of Austria-Hungary. While yes, this could be useful, I know for a fact, that many people have come and read the Footmen Frenzy article and use it as a guide to help them with their gaming. This article does not offer advice, but rather, information that they may have overlooked. First off, exhibiting examples of articles that you find non-notable does nothing to address the concern over the notability of the article in question; it's a logically fallacious diversionary tactic. Secondly, If you can convince other editors in AfD that placing 3rd on the "Battle.Net Hall of Fame" is sufficient notability, so be it...but until I see some media coverage or something, I'm not convinced it's a notable and encyclopedic article. Finally, I'm glad that you know individuals that have benefitted from this content specifically, but Wikipedia is not a video game guide. IMO, Footmen Frenzy clearly is a video game guide, specifically for a non-notable fan-made map of a notable game. As I said, I hope some of the editors that work on this page can export the material to a gaming wiki. The best solution, I think, would be: All the non-notable WC user maps are transwikied A single, simple article is created about user-designed maps for games that commonly have them; this article would contain links the the relevant gaming wikis Redirects of the most popular titles land on said general article All info is retained overall and a lot of cruft is eliminated from Wikipedia. -- Scientizzle 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC) BMAA Hi, I created a quick stub about BMAA, and later I noticed that it was in your to-do list. Just to let you know, in case you want to expand it. Itub 21:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Cool, thanks for the heads-hup. I'll see if there's anything I can add. -- Scientizzle 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Madness Combat Hi, I just want to know about that notability thing in the Madness Combat Article, i (and lots of people too) thinks that Madness Combat is a unique series of flash animation, it comes of newgorunds, and it deserves the Wikipedia because is one thing that will be relevant on the future, because part of the flash animation history RoQ 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC). Thanks for the message. The article currently does not meet WP:WEB, so I have re-tagged it for notability concerns. -- Scientizzle 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Hey Scientizzle, Madness Combat cartoons are hosted on AtomFilms would you count that as qualifying for Wikipedia:Notability_(web) part 3? --Simonkoldyk 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Please note that AtomFilms distributes other things liker The Jedi Hunter--Simonkoldyk 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Well, The Jedi Hunter article does make clear that the film won some awards and received play outside of internet forums. If you can demonstrate that Madness Combat has acheived anything similar, then I'd consider that a valid claim to notability (meets WP:WEB). My opinion: unless an online creation (such as flash films) can demonstrate notability outside its local universe--for example, AtomFilms or Newgrounds or RandomInternetForum.com--it is only potentially relevant and notable within the discussions of said distributor(s). If there's any indication that this particular series has received attention from the media or won an award, anything beyond internet forum popularity, then it should be kept (if properly verifiable and sourced). If not, perhaps it's notable enough within the context of its distributor to merit mention in that article...but not an article of its own. -- Scientizzle 20:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC) mhmm that makes sense, although as I understood it when reading WP:WEB because AtomFilms just don't select everybody and only the top films are put on it; and they actually pay you to have your films on their site that it would not be grouped into the category of sites like Newgrounds. Do you happen to know if this has been discussed before? Also see Joe Cartoon I'm not trying to make a Pokemon argument here, more trying to figure out how other flash animations that only seem to have a large presence on the web and aren't mentioned by media sources because they aren't doing a big movie or something and yet are still on Wikipedia. --Simonkoldyk 06:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Well, WP:WEB note 7 states that "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Now, I'll admit that I don't know much about AtomFilms (AtomFilms doesn't have an article, maybe it should?), but I'm not convinced that because they pay for the content it's a less trivial distributor...but maybe so. I searched through all the archives for Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) and AtomFilms seems to have never been discussed. Perhaps you'd like to bring it up? I'd imagine it will get the same treatment from the community as Newgrounds, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Also, I've tagged Joe Cartoon for notability concerns. It was almost deleted last year, and doesn't seem to have improved. -- Scientizzle 20:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Thank you, I have brought the discussion of Atom Films up in the talk page of WP:WEB, and also Atom Films although it may be small. Thank you for taking your time to answer my questions. --Simonkoldyk 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Hi Scientizzle, sorry for not signing my comment, and thanks for the welcome message. —The preceding [ironically :) ] unsigned comment was added by RoQ (talk • contribs) . Thanks for the note. Good luck editing. -- Scientizzle 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Atom Films Hello, I have removed your notability comment from Atom Films and added the part with it being almost being bought out by Viacom's MTV and I'm pretty sure that qualifys as it was mentioned in media sources to comply with WP:WEB. --Simonkoldyk 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Nicely done. -- Scientizzle 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Madness Interactive Hello, would this [1] interview not satisfy WP:WEB? --Simonkoldyk 21:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I wouldn't think so, since Planetfreeplay.com is unlikely to qualify as a reliable source, as per WP:RS. It'd certainly be something to add as useful to an article, but assertions of notability generally require coverage from other established & notable sources. Also, since Planetfreeplay.com hosts the game on the site, other editors possibly wouldn't consider it an "independent" publication. In conclusion, I just don't think this interview cuts the mustard--you'll need to find coverage from a more established source. Best of luck, Scientizzle 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Getting my bearings... Thanks for the friendly welcome. You can probably tell from my clumsy edits that I'm still getting the hang of the wikipedia world, but I like to think I'm learning fast. At the moment I'm working on a group of closely related articles about the film projects of Robert D. Krzykowski in response to a number of inquiries from his fanbase as to why the information hasn't been put up here already. As such, the articles have already come under quite a bit of fire for the lack of citation (much of which will be provided over the next few days as I get the permissions needed) - the problem is that the nature of the subject makes it very hard to supply 'linkable' evidence. Hollywood producers don't make a habit of showing their hands on the internet, and while I happen to know that official IMDB entries are in the offing, the entries can't be made without reliable citation from elsewhere online - hence the need for the wikipedia articles. Basically, I find myself in a situation where there is considerable demand for a set of articles that rely on evidence from sites like IMDB, which in turn rely on evidence from wikipedia, which I can't give because I don't have an IMDB entry to wave around as citation. Combined with the fact that everyone involved in the production of the two motion pictures is staying very tight lipped about it and many of the original announcements in blogs and newspaper archives have expired into the void of cyberspace, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I'm supposed to keep this information online long enough to prove its validity. Any suggestions? Kinestra 13:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Well, with WP:RS & WP:V as your guidelines, the key is to find reliable external sources through which article claims can be verified. Newspaper & magazine articles would work great, if they exist. WP:CITE may be useful to read to help you along. It's okay to use non-web sources, too...just cite them properly. I guess the bottom line is: If you (or any other editor) can't find any reliable sources to verify your claims rather soon, the articles will basically have to go--they'll be deleted. They can be readily recreated in the future when sources (that meet Wikipedia policy) become available. Keep working on it, though. Feel free to ask me for help. -- Scientizzle 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Your comments on Talk:Waleed Malik Hi, I just thought I would let you know that your comments were removed by User: Gulli danda legend; I think the user is trying to keep the page with false information up. Ozzykhan 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the info. The page has been duly delted, which is good to see. -- Scientizzle 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Cannabis (drug) I really don't think it was good to remove my image at the Cannabis article. Why don't an article need images? At no: featured articles are articles with images all the way. If you think the image was misplaced in the article, or the article text don't fit to the image, I agree a bit. Please tell me why, but don't remove my image because "the article was long enough". NorwegianMarcus 06:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Honestly, I was trying to be nice. I think the picture is terrible in quality (you can't even read what's on the shirt); adds nothing to the article because it doesn't fit well with the text; the caption was horrible and misspelled; and the claim, "Nowadays it's popular tp (sic) have effects with weed symbols on" may well be true (in some regions, cliques, & age groups), but is not sourced in the text or the caption, making it an OR statement. And the article--one of relatively surprising scholarly quality, considering the topic--is long enough that there's no need to throw in random, useless pictures. -- Scientizzle 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) In regards to the FIRST Robotics team page I created (Team 811) I would submit to you that as there are other FIRST Robotics team pages on wikipedia, your concern of notability is negated, unless all of the team pages are not notable. On top of that, that team, 811, had a very historic part in the early FIRST Robotics organization, as they held one of the first FIRST regional competition in their school's gym (and placed 9th overall). I will, however, attempt to find press coverage, as I too believe that to be important. Update: I have included several sites verifying the existance and importance of the team. Thank you for your concern and time, R3dheadstepchild 02:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Easy there tiger...I was just trying to help you out by pointing to the relevant notability guidelines and prod you for sources beyond the team website. I thank you for doing so, as it lends credibility to the statements in the article, satisfying the Wikipedia policy WP:V. Since you have addressed my concerns (in short order, no less), I will happily remove the {{notability}} & {{sources}} tags myself. Hopefully you'll continue to contribute to this project. Please feel free to contact me if you ever need assistance, as I've been around for a while now. Cheers, Scientizzle 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) PS-your statement, "there are other FIRST Robotics team pages on wikipedia, your concern of notability is negated, unless all of the team pages are not notable" is not logically true and you'll find that that sort of argument doesn't fly too well in deletion discussions & the like. The notability of Article X is dependent only on the ability of Article X to meet the guidelines of WP:N, regardless of the ability of (even closely related) Articles Y or Z to meet said guidelines. I beg pardon if I sounded rude or hastefull, and I thank you—The preceding unsigned comment was added by R3dheadstepchild (talk • contribs) . Don't worry about it. Best of luck in your future work here. -- Scientizzle 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)