User talk:Megan1967

Wikipedia should strictly adhere to being an encyclopaedia, not a dumping ground for people's "favourite" bands, websites and political opinion. Wikipedia should strictly stick to facts.

Songs

Individual songs should be deleted entirely from Wikipedia and banned. They do not serve any useful purpose except act as vanity mirrors for those band's fans. This has been discussed before and the consensus was not to add individual songs but this consensus is stretched all the time to what is and what isnt "notable". That means that "notable" is entirely a personal opinion and if so it doesnt belong on Wikipedia.

What criteria are you using in your cull of non-notable songs? RedWolf 03:57, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The one agreed to on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of songs by name. Megan1967 04:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please link or describe. Slike 04:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The majority consensus was to delete non-notable songs ("only list songs for which an article exists or might be considered desirable") see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_songs_by_name

Thanks, and keep up the good work :) Slike 04:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problems :) Merry Xmas Slike Megan1967 03:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"considered desirable" by whom? Sounds to me like censorship may play a factor in the cull. RedWolf 05:18, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Desirable by the majority of people who voted.

You have blanked a large number of pages, this should never be done. If you want these pages deleted please list them on Votes for Deletion, otherwise the blankings will be reverted. - SimonP 16:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

There has already been a Votes for Deletion on this issue. Megan1967 00:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One cannot leave pages blank. If a VfD discussion has decided that these pages should be deleted then you should mark them as speedy deletion candidates and an admin will go through and delete them. - SimonP 02:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Bands

There have been many bands added that are not "notable". These again appear to be added by fans and act only as a vanity mirror serving no useful purpose (except maybe for that band's propaganda). If the argument comes down to what is notable and what isnt, then all bands should be removed entirely from Wikipedia to end the argument.

Feedback Requested

You provided some feedback on VfD|Pengyam. Could you also give some on the related article (created by the same author): VfD/Penkyamp? Thanks. --Menchi 01:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Voting on archives

Megan1967, I noticed you voted on the VfD for "La La", but unfortunately, that VfD has been closed for some time now. I hope you don't mind that I reverted your edit. --Improv 00:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"penkyamp" could be a general noun

Keep: Fellow Wikipedians, please pause and think for a second: do you know the exact origin and meaning of "penkyamp" in the Cantonese language? Proper nouns(let's have no doubt that "Penkyamp" is indeed a proper name for the orthography), have varying degrees of SPECIFICITY. The fact that the name "penkyamp" does not automatically lead us to the origin of such system doesn't mean that such system wasn't in use under different names. Let's see: "penkyamp" as a GENERAL NOUN is inspired by Mandarin "pinyin", which is itself both a proper name for a system and a general noun designating "phonetic script". As a result, "penkyamp" as a general noun has been in use among the Cantonese referring to any phonetic script since at least the birth of the Mandarin Pinyin. And "Penkyamp" as a proper noun for a specific system might not be in place well after this system was in use for many years, only until it was introduced to us as such. What if on-line records before 2003 has been mostly erased?

Besides, the article started under the entry Cantonese Romanization instead of Penkyamp. Maybe back then "Penkyamp" wasn't finalized as its only proper name. It could be "Lomazi" or "Zeuyamp". At least it's nothing as specific as "Jyutpin" (a name that is hightly stylized and specified as a "PINyin"--note: not a Cantonese pronunciation--- of the "Jyut"(Guangdong)-- nothing can get as specific as this, which will garantee to trace back to its origin as an officially sponsored scheme). But "penkyamp" is not as specific as this. It means "phonetic script", is spelled as is pronounced in Cantonese, and is in circulation among the Cantonese thanks to the already existing Mandarin "Pinyin". I urge you to think twice about our obsession with the specificity of the proper name of the entry: what you call "Penkyamp" is actually of secondary relevance. The question is, what kind of usage, or systems were in existence before this name was finalized, on Wikipedia?

consistency and prosperity

A word of friendly advice: take a look at the dictionary definitions of the above words before using them in future. --Centauri 03:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read the policy on what Wikipedia is not. It is not a general database. Megan1967 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Villeneuve

Sorry to trouble you Megan, but I was hoping you might rethink the deletion of Villeneuve's page. It seems illogical to have such a long entry on the Permanent Defense, which is clearly notable and no mention of its founder who played such an instrumental role in defeating a statewide initiative that would have introduce 16000 slot machines to the state. He has been quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as a spokesman, he has his own group, he defeated a well funded initiative. I don't much like his politics, but he's certainly prominent. I suspect there's more to this proposed deletion than meets the eye. Libertas

Nothing more than any other candudate for VfD. I see your Talk page has garnered a few comments on your editing. I dont have any political views on Wikipedia, it tends to cloud ones judgment on articles. I see your homepage has quite a bit on your political viewpoints. Megan1967 01:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

who are you to decide who is notable

who do you think you are to decide who is a ntable band and who is not in quebec, 10000 albums is a gold record who are you to judge of the notability of a band in a country you dont even know(quebec)

It's called the Google Test, anonymous one. Megan1967 23:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop dissing topics outside your field of competence

Hi, Megan1967!
It is great that someone tries to clean up some of the garbage in Wikipedia, and for the most part you are doing a great job. But it is not as if disk space is scarce and some articles are taking up the space of others, so articles with serious intent, about topics which are not covered by other articles, should be allowed.
You have left some quite demoting comments about (what you call the "notability" of) certain article topics, where both POV (e.g. about Cobaye Molotov) and factual errors (e.g. about Toki Pona) make one suspect that you do not really know what you are talking about. You may want to try to be a little more open-minded to the possibility that not everyone agrees with you on what is "worth writing about" and not, because otherwise you risk giving people the impression that you are one who proposes to delete from the encyclopedia everything which does not interest you personally.
Thanks for listening!
--Verdlanco (talk) 10:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who is an editor can vote on VfD. There are no regulations against editors from doing so. I shall continue voting regardless of your "opinions". Megan1967 02:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No problem; I didn't say you are not allowed to flaunt your ignorance, I just wanted to advise you politely to tone it down, for your own reputation's sake, and let you know what impression it gives when you write comments about stuff you don't know much about. Now you know. --Verdlanco (talk) 16:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - What makes you think I dont know this area? You dont know me. Megan1967 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment

Hi, you recently commented on the VfD for British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment, which, as you may recall, was listed for having an "ugly" name. That listing has prompted me to write a proposal for a naming convention for articles about manuscripts without names. The proposal can be found here. Any comments you would like to make would be appreciated. Thank you. Dsmdgold 11:13, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)