User talk:SLOW93

Re:Craig Malisow, you have not provided adequate proof of notability. DrKiernan 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Craig Malisow, you have not provided adequate proof of notability. DrKiernan 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Okay, sorry, I am new to this.

Would you like links to his work? I thought that is what Google and Yahoo are for.

I am confused.

Sorry. Thanks for your help.

Craig Malisow article[edit]

Okay, sorry, I am new to this.

Would you like links to his work? I thought that is what Google and Yahoo are for.

I am confused.

Sorry. Thanks for your help.

That's fine, as Bearian says below, please read Wikipedia:Notability. Essentially, you should provide independent, verifiable sources, e.g. press coverage, that show that Craig Malisow has received significant coverage. DrKiernan 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, SLOW93, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Notability means the subject i sknown for doing something, see WP:N. Bearian 23:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much Thanks![edit]

Thank you, Dr. K and Bearian! I really appreciate your input. I will try to make my articles good enough. Thanks again for all your help.SLOW93 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Zuzana light[edit]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Xtzou (Talk) 19:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For wikidude jclemens: Hello, sorry, tried to bone up on all this stuff...ran across your mention "G10 Unless I completely misread the article, complaining about my deletion of a G10 is a good way to get blocked: that indicates you have no comprehension of what Wikipedia is for, nor the expected standards of behavior. While I might make a mistake, odds are that if you made a G10, you really would be better off lying low and not griping." So I'm really hesitant about saying...but...uh...could you please tell me what was attack-y or disparaging about my Zuzana entry? I am actually a big fan, and think she qualifies for her own page...I was not trying to demean or defame her in any way...I was really surprised that there was no page for her at all, even though she's been written up by, like, Maxim, and stuff.

Again, sorry if I'm busting your rules, and thanks for any help you can give me.

Oh, and just 'cause I noticed it on your Talk thingy..."Mazes and Monsters" was a TV movie, if I remember correctly, with Tom Hanks. It had some notability, 'cause all the moms back at the time were going ape over D&D, and that movie made them all think their kids were going to kill the whole family, then themselves. It was in all the papers.

Thanks again.

Catfish[edit]

Wikipedia has a strict neutrality policy. Editors must never ever state anything but facts! No matter what subject one writes about, the article must contain 0 judgmental phrases, adverbs, adjectives ecc. unless they can be proven through references! Please read: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) to learn more about this policy. To take your catfish article as an example, the parts in cursive are the ones that violate NPOV.

A much-hyped 2010 film built around the conceit that the story is "true," almost exactly the same as the prior, oft-ballyhooed "Blair Witch Project.' Advertised as a documentary involving a man being filmed by his friends as he builds a romantic relationship on the social networking website Facebook with an attractive girl, and the thrilling, mysterious results when they all go to visit her (begging the question of what kind of idiot would have his friends bring a video camera along on his first meeting with a chick he met on the Internet...and what kind of idiots would go with him).

noclador (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm....thanks, noclador....I appreciate your explanation....but, uh, I am not sure there is anything such as a "judgmental adjective." Either it is correct, or it isn't. I mean, in objective terms. Case in point, the film is hyped quite a bit: many advertising dollars have been spent doing so. That's the point of advertising. It is, indeed, built around the conceit that the story is "true"-- just as, say, the conceit of "Rope" is that it is occurring in realtime: these are the assumptions the filmmakers are asking the audience to share. With "Catfish, the trailer makes that assertion, repeatedly and literally: "Not based on a true story...not inspired by true events...just true."

Again, I am sorry, and I am new at this, and I don't mean to question your discretion...but it seems to me that your first assessment of my original entry was wrong (mathematically, if nothing else), and then I pointed this out, so then you stated that my adjectives are "judgmental." I mean, I am not trying to accuse you of dissembling or anything, but it seems a bit strange that you did not point out the "judgmental" aspect of my entry in the first place, but instead waited to point out that particular trait after I'd already responded to your inaccurate portrayal of the first entry.

I apologize if I offend in any way, and just want my entries to be better.

Oh, this also begs the question: if someone finds an entry with "judgmental" language, is it better to delete the entry entirely, thus depriving Wikipedia and the world of content about that topic, or try to come up with synonyms that the discoverer finds "non-judgmental"?

Thank you very much for all your help up to this point.SLOW93 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Light[edit]

I'm not too sure about celebrities. What I suggest is that your start the article at User talk:SLOW93/Zuzana Light, make sure to include as much information as you can including the CBS news reference. Remember not to copy what others say but use your own words and keep it neutral (don't use words like "hottie" unless you are quoting someone). Then ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Others will be able to help you there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the suggestions; I think I will do that. I appreciate your time. SLOW93 (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)SLOW93[reply]

No problem. Have fun. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]