User talk:Duemellon

Hello Duemellon and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

My Wiki-mission[edit]

The big things I'm concerned about are:

1) Overwriting historical perspectives instead of creating up to date addendums.

If we lose our perspective of events in the past as they were perceived at the time we lose an important window into the mindset of society, or that particular author's depection of social reaction. Any updates that refute the on-the-spot reaction should be an addition. Even if there is a retraction to what was considered factual.

An important fact about the opinion of the word's shape is that it was, at one point, considered flat. To go through and eliminate that information would remove the context of the importance of the revelation as well as an important piece of accepted general knowledge.

2) Avoiding perspectives of perception to the event and information while ensuring that socially-centric statements are properly noted as such.

Archiving is about facts, and a generally held opinion can be considered a fact (in that the opinion was generally held). Such opinions are important in the perspective of the readers to come. It is simultaneously necessary to ensure such opinions are duly noted to be opinions, and that they are properly attributed to the group of people that held it.

It would be a great disservice to archive the events of the 9/11 attacks without including the reaction to them. Just imagine if a thousand years from now a researcher with no previous information was to read the event as a series of facts but all forms of emotional reaction were left out? It's the same situation I have faced when reading information about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. or the Chernobyl disaster. It is very important to share an emotional reaction clearly separate from the facts and attributed to the society or group who reacted such a way.

3) Redundant, unnecessarily supurfluous, and information considered important but in perspective is not.

As the current contributors we have a responsibility to include information and create articles we consider relevent. The caveat is to avoid expounding on people or places who's relevence to the course of history is dubious. To spend a few pages on World War II is expected, but to have a separate articles for every individual who participated in the war on any level is not. If a tribute is desired and is relevent to the subject, I suggest a large consolidated page for the various subjects. This also means we must reign in our current enthusiasm for current events and consider their relevence to the future audience. An entry about the fictional Star Wars Universe deserves archiving, but the eleventh episode of Vampire Hunter D would be too much focus on a contemporary event.

Well, those are the things I'm on the lookout for.

Pound Cake Speech[edit]

I have requested that cites be found for some of the claims in the article. I wanted to notify you, since you created much of the material, in case the article wasn't on your watch list. Jim Apple 06:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax reform[edit]

Thought I'd let you know that I put United States Tax Reform up for a merge with Tax Reform. Since you seemed to think it should be merged as well. Morphh 04:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to List of characters in Heroes[edit]

I reverted your edits because of numerous grammatical errors and wordiness that didn't appear to contribute any new information. Primogen 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD tags[edit]

Please do not remove article for deletion tags. They lead people to the discussion about that article through the this article's entry button on the tag. You are welcome to participate in the discussion, it is happening here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people responsible for a death HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have figured it out, thanks! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sean Beall, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) 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. Mhking 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous only in death[edit]

FYI, following your comment on the deleting admin's talk page, I have asked for a deletion review of List of people who became famous only in death. I have also raised the more general issue of standards at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Consensus standards for deletion. --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional lost cities and towns has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Fictional lost cities and towns has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]