User talk:SamuelRiv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For posters: please feel free to post anything, but any deletes will be reverted (unless your are amending your own posts). Questions, comments, criticisms concerns about edits and articles, etc. are all welcome. SamuelRiv 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Article Inversion temperature created by you 3 Unsolved problem in physics revert 4 Embedded pushdown automaton 5 Re: National Academic Quiz Tournaments 6 DYK 7 DYK (Biological neuron models) 8 Encyclopedia Dramatica 9 User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica 10 Thank you for answering my question

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SamuelRiv, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Inversion temperature created by you

I find that there already exist Temperature inversion which redirect to Inversion (meteorology). I think you should redirect Inversion temperature to Inversion (meteorology) and contribute to Inversion (meteorology). That way existing article will improve. Am I right?

Thanks. TRIRASH 07:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Inversion temperature is an intrinsic property of gases and has nothing to do with meteorological inversion. The two are completely different topics in very different fields (statistical mechanics vs. meteorology). Thanks for reading the new article, though. SamuelRiv 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK then. No problem. Just brought to your notice. Thanks. TRIRASH 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved problem in physics revert

Let's discuss this in the talk page of the article. Dan Gluck 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Embedded pushdown automaton

Thanks a ton for the Embedded pushdown automaton article. I've been wanting to get around to working on that article, so I appreciate your work on that. –jonsafari (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, and it's great to meet a formal linguist. Please give suggestions, as much of the notation was copied from (Weir 1994), who copied his from (Vijay-Shanker 1988) and was an absolute brainfuck to get through. I modified it a little, but it could probably use more simplification, especially with the doubledagger-epsilon dual notation. Meanwhile, stay in the loop, as I have a few more linguistics and computation pages on my ToDo list and can always use more input. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: National Academic Quiz Tournaments

Hi Samuel!

Regarding your recent inclusion of a notable individuals section on this article:

While I personally agree with the section, and the people whom you have included, I am worried about three potential problems:

1. I am concerned that many editors will look at these people as "non-notable". They are certainly notable in the quizbowl community, but that is a rather small group within the grand scheme of the world.

2. Some (emphasis, some) of the language can be interpreted as "flowery". For example: Matt Weiner, the sole representative of Virginia Commonwealth University, competed against and soundly defeated. Speaking as someone who down vandalism and weeds out inappropriate content, flowery language like this is usually a red flag that draws my attention immediately. I think it would be better to remove the word "soudly defeated, and put in the actual score.

3. Citations. The defense against deletion will be citations. Even for people who have notability limited to a small community, this can be a defense. For example, consider bringing up Weiner's Young Cooper Award as a way to enhance his notability to an ignorant editor.

I haven't touched the article, but I already saw that some editor tried to make a deletion. I have little doubt that this will continue. I am just throwing down my two cents to assist. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't add this stuff...we've already had numerous vandals create articles about Matt Weiner, and it's going to continue to be a huge vandal magnet. I'm sure you know how petty and insipid the world of quiz bowl can be, and once you create an article about one random player, someone other drama queen's fragile ego will need to be stroked, based on some accomplishment or other, and where will it stop? I'm sure there must be a quiz bowl wiki somewhere where this would be more appropriate. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was a bit quick in adding the section (and it was 2am!), so I didn't get much on sources or NPOV. For now, I'll keep the section, neutralify Weiner's statement (it was amazing to see it firsthand, though. Maybe I haven't been in the circuit long enough), and delete authorlinks so people don't think individual articles need to be written. Thanks for the kind responses. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 26 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oja's rule, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK (Biological neuron models)

On 29 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biological neuron models, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Spebi 08:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica

Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat

I believe closing debate on Encyclopedia Dramatica in Wikipedia:Deletion review after only 2 hours of existence was premature. Not all questions that I had raised had been answered, and only one other WPian was present. Your reasons cited did not make sense.

• "Not going to happen" is essentially saying that debate cannot occur, when the article topic in question does not violate any of WP:DEL.
• You cited the ArbCom rulings (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Proposed decision and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO). These rulings pertained specifically to users involved in the incidents and to external links to ED, but did not mention anything regarding whether or not ED was appropriate to be included as an article in WP. It did cite the VfD debates, but those can be overturned through the channels I was going through here.

Therefore, I am asking that discussion be reopened, and pertaining to the discussion, that the namespace Encyclopedia Dramatica be opened so that an appropriate article can be created, as there is no official ban on that namespace. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the idea of an ED article has been discussed to death, and no one has shown any indication that a valid article - one that satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:WEB (unlikely given that many sources are passing mentions or ED trolling) - could be written on ED. Unless you can, there is little point in bringing up a new DRV. ED is an attack site; unprotecting its article space would simply invite floods of vandalism long before a valid article could be written. --Coredesat 09:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of that is true, but the "attack site" angle is a red herring best ignored. We can't apply that as an encyclopedic standard, but we don't have to, because we've got WP:WEB, etc. Bringing up the idea that it may or may not be an "attack site" by some definition of that term is a distraction from the point, and makes it look as if we're applying some standards other than what we should. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat

I have gathered some information together at User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica, but before starting to write the article, I came across the archived version at [1] and its WP mirror at User:Mrmattkatt. Obviously cleanup is necessary, and some new information and links are now available on my page, but what is wrong content-wise with this article? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to copy the question, I guess I'll copy the answer.

That's easy. There is no "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." Nobody has written anything about ED; they've only been mentioned in a couple of pieces about other topics. Do they meet WP:WEB? That's the only question to ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat

I'm going to ask that all discussion be moved to my talk page, as it looks like I'm going to be the principal player here. I am copying all my comments to said page, but I think this would be much more appropriate on the deletion appeals page, and so again I am asking that discussion be re-opened there. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on what's on that page, I'm not going to reopen the DRV. Nothing there satisfies any of the relevant policies or guidelines. --Coredesat 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this. Relevant policies and guidelines seem to me to be satisfied. WP:NOTE is a joke here - the amount of emotion that fires up on the mention of ED in WP is notability enough (but then of course we have verifiable statistics in google search records, unique hits per month, and page rankings in internet poll sites). WP:V then only requires notability of the article and the sources, but the sources themselves do not have to make the article notable, hence the justification for only having side-reference sources (the Digg article refers to ED specifically in terms of Google censorship, etc). I believe these two are satisfied independently of WP:WEB, which is a subsection guideline of WP:NOTE, but the relationship to Google and Wikipedia seem to satisfy criteria 1 and 2 of WP:WEB. Finally, since this debate is between a lowly editor and a powerful admin, is my next step if we deadlock here a RfC, or what? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "the amount of emotion that first up on the mention of ED in WP is notability enough," is nonsense. We're not that masturbatory, to think that our personal reactions to ridicule is sufficient to confer notability on that ridicule. The fact is that there has been no non-trivial coverage of ED in independent sources. Until that standard can be met, there can be no article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A RFC over this issue would be equally useless, as well. No one has done anything that could be considered out of line, and this dispute is not in RFC's scope. DRV has repeatedly ended with a request to show how an article on ED could possibly meet existing policies and guidelines; that request has not been met, and until it is met (with consensus that it has been met), DRVs on ED will continue to be speedily closed. --Coredesat 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• That MSNBC clip you linked on User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica is a good one, actually - a two minute piece on MSNBC about an ED prank. Nice work. But seriously, stop obsessing over whether or not the Deletion Review discussion was speedily closed. It was speedily closed because you brought nothing that the last 10 Deletion Reviews didn't. The situation is simply: it will be considered again if and only if "a workable, brilliantly sourced draft using only reliable sources that are independent is created and presented in userspace". If you really want the article, spend your time working on that, not trying to persuade people to unprotect the article in main space before you write something. That's your next step: writing the article, not opening an RfC. --Stormie (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The draft that I am endorsing is the state of the article before deletion (on User:Mrmattkatt) as it satisfies NPOV, etc, and reads well. The Digg and MSNBC links should be added to the references section. I am not copying it into my page as it is not my work, and I won't claim it as such. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

More sources for you guys from CNN Headline News and The Observer Magazine (The Guardian's news mag) - see User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica SamuelRiv (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any of the sources you're referencing on your User space page are reliable. 1- New York Times, one sentence mentioned in passing. 2-Youtube is not a reliable source. 3- Spanish Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 4-A count of hits tells us nothing relevant. How do you write an article on that? 5-A forum post is not a reliable source. 5-petitinonloine tells us nothing that can be used to write an article on. Corvus cornix_talk 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I specifically said evidence for WP:NOTE, not reliable sources on which to base an article. You do not mention anything about CNNHLN or MSNBC (linked via YouTube, in which case it is reliable). SamuelRiv (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no difference between the two. The only point of WP:NOTE is making sure that we have sufficient sources on which to base an article. It remains true that there are no non-trivial sources about ED. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:V makes sure you have sufficient sources on which to base an article. WP:NOTE is guidelines on whether or not an article should be included, and this can come from multiple non-direct sources (i.e. WP:Google_test). The main argument at this point that I would make for WP:NOTE is, combined with page ranks, increasing numbers of searches on google for ED, its use on other WPs, and references by reliable sources, is that it was itself used as a reference by a reliable source. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... don't tell me what WP:NOTE means. I was there when it was written, and I helped write it. We decided that, in order for a subject to be notable enough for an article, it has to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. ED isn't. The Google test is shit. Page ranks are shit. Other WPs are shit. Non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources is what we're looking for, and it's what we haven't got with ED. I like ED, but we don't make exceptions for things we like, anymore than we make exceptions for things we don't like. Wait for the sources, ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The search engine test is neither a policy nor a guideline, and it (or page ranks, for that matter) is not a substitute for reliable sources. Other Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria and those criteria do not apply here (also, who is to say the articles won't be deleted from there?). At any rate, your reply does not address the lack of non-trivial sources about ED itself. --Coredesat 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's up for review again at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_6.--91.121.88.13 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica

A tag has been placed on User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Enough with the drama, already. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mrmattkatt.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page 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. Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that "stop the drama" is not an argument and does not cite WP policy. However, "ArbCom does NOT decide policy" IS policy.

Your Wikilawyering is duly noted. Note also that someone else actually pulled the trigger.

In short, leave this alone, or at least read the page you are tagging before you tag it.

I did read it, which is why I, you know, tagged it for speedy deletion. Reality check: ED? It's not getting an article on Wikipedia, period/full stop, no matter what legalisms you try to bring to bear. It be dead, and you can't breathe any life into its corpse. --Calton | Talk 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for answering my question

Here is [my comment] to your answer. I was wondering why people weren't responding! Again, thank you.Sam Science (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)