User talk:PaulHanson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Usually they have a regular welcomer do this, but in their absense, I guess it might as well fall to me to welcome you to Wikipedia. A few tips:

• Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
• Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date
• Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump
• Have fun.

-- Matty j 07:41, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you comment on the abortion in Canada page about discussion of health care (called medicare in the wiki here. There is currently some discussion going on there, because i started some, as i didn't think the information on it was all correct (not exactly wrong...just not right). You could join the talk page there, and they've restructured it so it should be easie to make major changes. Although a Point of View is not encouraged informatino on either side is always welcome (i don't know how they would deal with arguments against...my guess would be try it and see...nobdoy will do anything other than possibly erase it and tell you why.

Welcome to the Wiki...i've only been here since about May with a large break when my computer was down...i've been trying to get that page up to speed for quite a while now--Marcie 13:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I got a better look at your comments (sorry for writing again so soon). From a Canadian standpoint the biography and history of Morgantaler and the case are important as they were the equivalent of Roe. Vs. Wade, but he didn't hide his name. Or at least there seems to be some consensus on that but people may well discuss it now. Do you know that you can keep track of a page by clicking the watch this page in the edit? Even if you are American you are able and "allowed" to edit the Canadian page (anybody can edit anything here...i've done some editing on the general abortion page which is more or less abortion in the US). Also alternate discussions in the actual page are fine as long as they are "encyclopedic" in content (i'm still figuring that out and a lot of my original stuff got turfed or totally rewritten). Find an article on adoption in Canada and you can write about it briefly (since it is a page on abortion) as well as linking it to a full page on the topic if you want....not that you even NEED my permission anyway. I write on topics that are not Canadian every once and a while or comment on the talk pages such as you did. Heck one of my stubs got thrown in the cleaning room recently (which i didn't know existed) and then i rewrote it some but somebody else took an interest and threw in a lot of good legal details they got somewhere and then it was taken out of the cleaners. --Marcie 22:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Welcome back 2 1911 EB 3 National Petroleum Technology Office 4 More Bonus Points 5 Views 6 Turnip head? 7 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina 8 Not appreciated 9 Suicide blonde 10 Trillium 11 You deleted one of my articles, please restore 12 Annie Easley Article - Potential Vanity Tag 13 Bidwill 14 Flaming Milka 15 Billy Staples 16 why 17 The Real Billy Staples? 18 Thanks 19 Fun is good 20 Notability 21 Federal Reserve work 22 Actional Corporation 23 Nutrilite Link

Welcome back

As i said welcome back...from your comment on germain i wasn't sure if you were refering to talking about adoption or my comment on your page. Discussion on adoption page possibility is fine although you may well get argument and at some point be asked not to talk about it...and then who knows, wiki is wiki and everyone has opinions (take a look at the comments on the general abortion talk page go to abortion and then look at talk and you'll see a lot of discussion...commenting on something i put in here without others knowing about it wasn't (not to rub it in i just wasn't sure which and i didn't want you to get the idea BOTH were a problem).

Not that you aren't able to copy out whatever i write whenever you want...although that is not generally considered polite i'm sure it happens here (i've yet to see it personally, although i told people where to go because i did think it was a bit unfair to them to comment on a comment so to speak). Apology accepted and i'll put it on the page...

Around here MY problem seems to be the nitpickers on grammar. A lot of what i write on the pages later (sometimes quite a bit later) gets the grammar corrected (more often its the wording and the person claims its the grammar---when they do that its annoying). It works out for a better page so i don't mind so much...i just wish it didn't have to happen sometimes (it would take someone really interested to go back and check who got the wording wrong a long time ago anyway).

Why not put a bio up on your page? Just click on your name and edit. If you click on my name it has a small bio on it...just a way of saying hello to folks. Its not required but personally i like them and you seem interested in how people get to know one another...that is one way. The other is from working on pages together. I think there are a bunch of other ways too. I just haven't had the time to do more than i am doing at the moment.

One thing i would suggest....and this is a suggestion only....if you noticed the page on Abortion in Canada has a note asking us to "reword" it. Nobody has touched the actual page since then (if its for the same reasons as me i already worked hard with a lot of folks to word it the way it is and can't think of rewording the whole thing...maybe if the request was more specific). I would consider before actually changing it...although heck it might be a start to people working on it again...i just thought since you'd been gone you might want to know what the score is (from what i think anyway).--Marcie 02:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I realized i left all of this without really telling you how to respond. Just click on the name at the end, which brings up the bio, then go to discuss this page. Or find something i've modified and go the to (talk) that appears there. Email can be sent without your email address going out, which is a feature (you can see that on my talk page on left...however most conversation goes on here--Marcie 10:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1911 EB

Yes, be prepared for a lot of goofy spelling errors and phantom "not found" articles in the 1911 EB. They used OCR to scan it in and a lot of the text is garbled. I like it because it's a research challenge, almost like a word game, but others avoid the really messed up stuff. Also, I've been removing some of the "search links" because they are not really helpful and increase saving time by a ton. Anyway, welcome and enjoy. --DanielCD 00:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

National Petroleum Technology Office

Thanks for your comments on the VfD for this article: if you have the references, it might be as well to just redirect the page. The current German version does not talk about a US gov't agency (or, IMHO, anything else which is WikiWorthy), but this would seem a justifiable action in my eyes. Physchim62 23:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More Bonus Points

Well, if you're going to gloat on anything, it might as well be a good bet. I try to think of it as my "arriving" into the ranks of most experienced and dedicated Wikipedians. When you're an admin, your user page gets vandalized regularly.

Unfortunately, my town is a mecca for people like that guy. I have a suspicion that there is a magnet located somewhere underneath the area that attracts them, and until I can find it, I'll just have to come onto here and learn how to cope with them and/or laugh at their antics.

The quote on your user page inspired me to go back and probably get some more bonus Rofling from ya. So in honor of that inspiration, I award you the "Barnstar that was eaten by a Bear", although it's up to you to decide whether i'm awarding you the barnstar itself or the bear. I think you've earned the right to make that decision. I just advise no sudden movements ;-) Karmafist 19:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome. That's what Wikipedia's here for: cataloging all human knowledge, a sense of community, and random ego inflation. Ahhh, gotta love the internet. I was referring to the Atheist/Hospital/Baskin Robbins riff, btw. Karmafist 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh, thanks. That quote seems to always get a chuckle. Paul 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• No prob on the browser problems, I usually have dialup, so my connection fucks up on me regularly. Luckily, the Wifi cafe i'm in now is a little better, although it's had some conniptions today. Karmafist 19:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Views

Thanks for your comment on my talk page; I'm happy to see that we agree :-)

I've been really disappointed lately by a number of the inclusionists winning some of the school battles, but I've been pleasantly surprised to see a nearly equal number of people whom I agree with.

I'd be happy to work with you in the future, just let me know if you have something in mind. My "specialties" are colleges/universities, political science, American history, and most things Ohio related. Thank again for your comments! -Soltak | Talk 20:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Turnip head?

Greetings, Paul. Your link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnip head is broken, and I can't find the article it should point to... was it one that might have been speedied? -- BDAbramson ^talk 04:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• The article was indeed speedied by Zzyzx11 at 16:59, 12 September 2005 (you can find a searchable record of deleted articles at Special:Log/delete). You did nothing incorrectly - there was just no article for the AfD link to point to. Sometimes, however, editors make mistakes copying the capitalization or punctuation of the article to be deleted (especially if it was originally posted with a mis-spelled title), so that the AfD link does not work, but the article that it was intended to address remains. -- BDAbramson ^talk 13:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BDAbramson ^talk 00:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not appreciated

You might want to familiarise yourself with WP:ATTACK. I do not particularly appreciate being branded a "clown" and qualifying it with "with all due respect" does not make it right. Therefore I would appreciate it if you would refrain from such personal attacks in future. My concerns with the article, in particular the potential copyright violation and large amounts of non NPOV material were clearly explained when I nominated it. chowells 23:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

PS, I'm referring to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler's Pope

Thank you for the apology on my talk page, appreciated and accepted. chowells 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Suicide blonde

• I have rewritten the article about the INXS song which was a big hit back in 1990. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 10:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Trillium

Sure, go for it. I uploaded a tiny little one for a sig, if it's too small there's a bigger one waiting to be cropped out of Image:Franco-Ontarian_flag.png. — mendel ☎ 14:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You deleted one of my articles, please restore

Paul you recommended deletion of one of my articles, apparently without making an effort to contact me. There was no reason to delete it.

The page was "Flaming Milka"

You stated that it could not be verified.

It was historically accurate. After fifteen years of research i wrote a book about Milka Sablich, also refer to the writings of historian Joanna Sampson.

The information is verifiable through probably a hundred newspaper articles, many of them available from ancestry.com.

My email address was linked from a referenced page, and is available through Wikipedia. Why did you not contact me first?

I would very much like to have this page restored. If you do not restore it, i will simply have to create it again.

But i must say, how can you expect people to contribute to Wikipedia, if you seek to destroy their efforts?

richard myers rtmyers@h2net.net

Alright Paul, after your response to me, and a considerable amount of time reading Wikipedia guidelines on my part, i acknowledge that the article i wrote could have followed guidelines more closely. I will find the time to rewrite the page and provide more appropriate references to substantiate it before i take any other steps.

But this could have been handled differently. I am very irritated that a vote of two or three people can destroy someone's efforts; i believe that deletion is a severe, and in this case entirely unnessary, penalty. --User:Richard Myers

Annie Easley Article - Potential Vanity Tag

Can you tell me based on WHAT did you put a "potential vanity" tag in the Annie Easley article? I should put such tag in your USER PAGE instead.--AAAAA 03:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I placed the potential vanity tag there because it addresses a more specific problem than simply "cleanup." However, I respect your opinion that it is not, in fact, potential vanity; I would be interested to see what other users have to say as to whether or not I applied the tag properly. As for the page itself, I'm not certain if Ms. Easley meets the standards for notability, but again, I refer the question to the larger WP community. Paul 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Help desk in response to Paul's question. Best wishes. -Walter Siegmund 05:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The story of this article is as follows. I had NEVER heard of this Annie Easley in my life, until one day my daughter came home with an assignment from school. It was during the African American day or African American week or something like that. She had to make an article about an important African American personality. One of the names in the list was Annie Easley. I am not sure if she chose to do that one or if it was assigned to her. My daughter asked for my help because she tried to locate references on the Internet and she couldn't find many. I told her to check in Wikipedia and there was no article, or if there was there was not much info on it. So, I helped her find some references on the Internet, and then also decided to start (or improve) the article about Annie Easley in Wikipedia and did some work on it gathering information from different sources I could find (very few at the time). I guess that if she was on a list of "important African American people" given to my daughter at school, then the people there are notable enough for a good portion of the population (African American people), which in turn means that those people are notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I would also recommend to User:PaulHanson and others like him not to be so "trigger happy" and avoid converting "clean-ups" into "destroy-ups" if they don't know enough about the subject. It is not nice to see our work of hours destroyed because somebody "thought" it was vanity or whatever. Regarding the question about the "potential vanity" tag, it is my opinion that it should be use when there are strong signs that the author of the article is writing about himself, when there are no other references to that person on the internet(not the case of Annie Easley...you can find several school essays posted on the Internet about her) and when the editor has no ID or has not written about any other article that that one--AAAAA 06:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bidwill

It looks like you apply these tags way too liberally... Michael Bidwill is certainly notable! Could you please explain your reasoning??? zellin 17:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you are saying - do you mean that every article about a person on Wikipedia is potentially vanity??? zellin 20:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Flaming Milka

I thought the author's arguments for undeletion were pretty convincing (there are not going to be many Google hits for a person that's been notable a century ago). It doesn't appear a made up stuff and far less notable people have their articles in Wikipedia. The verifiability is a serious problem - but the only person knowledgeable of the topic and being able to provide serious proof (scans of newspapers, etc.) has been probably scared off Wikipedia because his article was deleted.  Grue  20:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Billy Staples

Hi, PaulHanson. I don't see that anything was done incorrectly by you to the Billy Staples article. I did clean up some of the article to conform with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Notably, section headers are in sentence capitalization instead of initial caps as was in the article. I also changed the IMDB external link to use the {{imdb}} template so that if imdb.com decides to ever change their URL conventions, we shouldn't have to worry about all of the ill-formed links. I did note on the anonymous user's talk page that they should refrain from adding non-encyclopedic content to the article, such as "don't change the page", etc. Happy editing. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 22:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

why

Paul

this is Billy Staples. May I please ask what is your interest in my page? we are both from LI, have I ever done something to you, that of all the people on wiki, you pick my page that people went out of their way to make for me, fans of the show and take it upon yourself to change it to what you believe it should say.

Yes somethings were wrong. Agents names is not advertising. In show biz, that is known as information.

But the name part is ridiculous. Please stop listing me under my real name first. Wiki rules state that a pseudonym goes first if that is what they are known as, followed by the real name....fine (eg: sinbad, cedric the entertainer to check if you like)

Let's end this silliness of changing and reverting and changing....and let it just be. It's not hurting anyone with what info I put on that I know is true or others i should say do.

this is silly and don't want it to get ugly, hell for al i know we are neighbors

Billy Staples

The Real Billy Staples?

Billy- If it's really you, then I'm honored. I'm a huge R+F fan. Please see my comment on the Billy Staples talk page. Please, sign up for a user name to make communicating easier, I'd love to work with you to improve the R+F-related articles. Best, Paul 03:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't know you but your comment with your vote here[[1]] was priceless.-Dakota 04:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fun is good

Keep it up.Thanks.-Dakota 20:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability

You may well be right. Did you look at what links to that page and read those articles? Are they significant enough for inclusion do you think? Charlie Richmond 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the article following your suggestions, thanks! Charlie Richmond 20:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Federal Reserve work

I just noticed you doing the work on FR-topics. How do you feel about making a new category for governors and former governors for Ferguson, Yellen, and so forth? -James Howard (talk/web) 23:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant separate categories for presidents and governors, check out the change I just made to Janet Yellen. -James Howard (talk/web) 23:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the only people to be both governor and president were Yellen and Vocker, so I am not sure it would be a lot of overall clutter. -James Howard (talk/web) 00:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actional Corporation

Your edit on the Actional Corporation page was inaccurate, SOA actually stands for Service-Oriented Architecture, which is stated on their website (external link is on the article). A little research always helps. Make sure you do this in the future instead of assuming something. Thanks. — Wackymacs 08:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul, "Hungarian prehistory" and "Hungary before the Magyars" are two completely different things. Please read both articles carefully before suggesting a merge. Codex Sinaiticus 23:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nutrilite Link

Sorry. You must have created the article while I was editing, because it was definitely red when I started :) --Craig (t|c) 10:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)