Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Mikula

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StefenTower (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 16 May 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Classic vanity page. Isomorphic 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grrrr. He removed the vfd notice. Oh, and while the original version listed his degrees and said he's currently in a Ph.D. program, now he's just a "neuroscientist". Bah. Stupid grad student with an over-inflated ego. Isomorphic 22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! Vanity! Delete! - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should also delete related article Mind-Brain.com. —Frecklefoot 22:32, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, unless someone can demonstrate Mikula's significance, of course. I concur with Frecklefoot about Mind-Brain.com. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, perhaps I'm changing my vote -- his article does go a bit overboard, but google for "Shawn Mikula" + mind-brain ... Apparently he's actually pretty well spread over the internet. Can anyone tell if this is just a successful self-promotion campaign, or if these are reputable sites? ImmInst, for example? Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Shawn Mikula's significance, see the following: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22shawn+mikula%22 --128.220.29.140
  • why do you think it's a vanity page? What not de-vanitize it? I'm expecting others will and that other contributions and links will be made. -128.220.29.140
    • The concern is whether there is enough verifiable information on Mikula to be able to do so -- I'm thinking there may be, but I think we should all express our opinions. Additionally, we have a policy against people creating pages about themselves, and you do appear to be Mikula (though I'm sure you'll insist you aren't. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not. I got most of the info directly from mind-brain.com and some from direct acquiantance with him. -128.220.29.140
      • What do you all need to find these page submissions acceptable? Better write-ups? -128.220.29.140
        • Speaking for myself, I need some clear evidence that Shawn Mikula's notability rises to encyclopedic standards. Some evidence that people might want to look him up in Wikipedia. For example, a notable neuroscientist might be expected to have written a book, but an Amazon search for author Shawn Mikula yields no hits. Has he, say, won a McKnight scholarship from the McKnight Endowment Fund for the Neurosciences? Anything like that? Dpbsmith 02:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd think that few neuroscientists have time to be writing books. -Mikula
            • If you'd think that, you'd be wrong. David Marr died at age 36, but managed to find time to write enough seminal papers to fill the book "Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information." Bernard Katz managed to find time to write the semipopular book Nerve, Muscle, and Synapse, and deserves his Wikipedia article, although possibly winning the Nobel prize may have been a more important contribution. And take a look at Warren McCulloch's Embodiments of Mind. Incidentally, that book contains some of his poetry, as well as some of his papers such as "A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity."
              • Granted, Shawn has not won a nobel prize (yet) nor can I find any books that he's found time to publish (besides articles in journals), but with all due respect, Warren McCulloch is small time. -Janus san
                • You do not bolster respect for your position by saying that the first president of the American Society for Cybernetics is "small time." Isomorphic 21:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not trying to play down Warren and I am not meaning any disrespect, but I am sufficiently knowledgeable of his works in and contributions to neuroscience to pass judgement, in my opinion. And how many Google hits does Warren have? 1,850, compared with Shawn's 26,400. -Janus san
                  • I'll bet Warren doesn't call Shawn "Shawn." Dpbsmith 23:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The person's article certainly has a ways to go to indicate notability (any books, works published in journals or other third parties, etc.)--is this the same person that has a bunch of poetry hits? Also, it should link to the WP mind-brain article, rather than the external link. mind-brain.com is at the top of the alexa.com category "Subjects > Society > Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind > Consciousness Studies"., but it would be a better article if it gave more details about accomplishments than objectives.Both articles should focus more on detailing notable accomplishments/works, instead of airy jargo-babble about intentions/beliefs. Keep if improved, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Niteowlneils 00:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's a grad student. The current version doesn't reflect this, but that's what he is. Check the original version. Not saying he couldn't be notable as a grad student, but there's no particular reason to believe he is, either. Isomorphic 05:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's famous and spread across the internet. -Mikula
  • Delete, see Ecclesiastes 1:2. But take a look at Shawn and Tabitha's wedding, particularly the cake kiss. Dpbsmith 02:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC) P. S. And one of his poems, Am I to blame?[reply]
  • Delete: self promotion, nonnotable. A few journal and conference publications is, sadly, no sign of notability, and neither is a vanity web site. I looked at the abstracts for a couple of his papers and it looks like pretty typical academic journal material -- solid work, I'm sure, but not distinguished. Come back in a decade or two, Shawn, but leave the poetry out of it, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all are such hypocrites and provincials. I've seen so many pages at wikipedia that could much more easily be classified as "vanity pages" than the one that started this thread. Hypocrites and provincials, the whole lot of you, that's what you are! Congratulations on your lameness! -Shawn314
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a place to post your life story. (Unless you are notable)--Beelzebubs 15:24, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good point re. that Anissimov article. Someone listed it as needing cleanup, but I'm of a mind to put it up for delete. Anyone else want to take a look at it? - Lucky 6.9 16:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, and now abuse. See talk:Michael Anissimov for my comments on that page. Some linked pages should also go IMO. Andrewa 16:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see "Shawn Mikula" has 25,800 Google hits. Hmmmm..... -Mikula
  • Delete. Clear vanity, abuse, etc. Plus the author obviously feels like he has something to hide if he won't even sign his posts. I don't see Mikula's relevance at all. blankfaze 19:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • why don't you read about his accomplishments before passing judgment? -Janus san
  • Delete. No evidence of achievement that merits being in encyclopedia. Every graduate student writes papers and presents them at conferences. Andris 21:32, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • He has published in many journals, is known across the neuroscience community, has hosted many talks, and belongs to many key organizations. Quite simply, he is a current leader in the field. If some ppl are not aware of this it's probably because they're lagging behind by 10 yrs or more. -Janus san
  • Delete both pages. The "solution" to the mind-body problem mentioned in the article seems to be nothing more than a retreading of functionalism. This is a classic vanity page. The fact that he added himself to a list of philosophers working on the mind-body problem next to Daniel Dennett just adds insult to injury. Of the Google hits, nearly all of them seem to be crap indexes that he's added himself to. — Adam Conover † 22:07, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • a retreading of functionalism? You have misread the article apparently. Daniel Dennett is just a philosopher, to my understanding, and has no neuroscience background, nor has he made any contributions to neuroscience. So his contributions to the mind-brain problem, lacking any such background, are doubtful at best. Or, to put it another way, a philosopher lacking a rigorous scientific background can amount to little more than a poet, in my opinion. Dennett has published some books but has made no contributions to neuroscience. Dennett will appeal to laymen, but it's hard to imagine that he'd appeal to a scientist-philosopher since he lacks a scientific background and scientific rigor. Also, I have read his books and what he has said on the mind-body problem, and I am not impressed. About Google hits, Shawn has more than Daniel Dennett, and I could say that most of the latter's are to crap indexes too. -Janus san
  • I don't think this is a vanity page. I do have the sneaking suspicion, however, that some people here feel, shall we say, less than adequate perhaps, which is why they are reacting so strongly against this page. To me, that's true vanity. -70.16.2.172
  • Delete, especially since this person is trying so hard to keep it without giving us any reason why it's worth having. RickK 04:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
    • you presume far too much. The reasons have already been given. Being that your background is in writing about fictional universes, I don't think you're really qualified to judge one way or the other. -70.16.2.172
  • Delete, Vanity. Well written vanity, but still vanity. --Starx 13:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:128.220.29.140, and User:70.16.2.172. When posting, please conclude your posts by typing four tildes, ~~~~ at the end. That will "sign" your post with your username and the time of posting. -Dpbsmith 00:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm, you know that those usernames don't exist, right? -70.16.2.172

Also, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, we currently have no article on Vernon Mountcastle (Vernon Benjamin Mountcastle, Jr. b. 15 July 1918), and we could use one. Dpbsmith 00:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Those users exist ! Just not the user page. It's alright. It would be easy to start those yet-to-exist user pages on behalf of the "users", cut-&-paste everything from Shawn Mikula & Mind-Brain.com. (or re-direct !)
Of course, the pages in question will need to be deleted to avoid duplications.
Let's do this to all Wiki-Vanity-pages.  :-)
199.71.174.100 05:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it's a good idea to do that with all Wiki-Vanity-pages, but it's still questionable to me that this submitted page constitutes a vanity page because I have seen many "lesser" individuals (in my opinion) with page listings at wikipedia. Perhaps they wrote some obscure book or song, and because of that, it somehow justifies that they be listed here over others who have made many significant contributions to science but who many laymen are probably unaware of. I think your biographical pages here are highly biased towards people that laymen may be familiar with and is very under-representative of the people who make real contributations to society but who may be less well-known to the laymen because they don't necessarily popularize themselves by publishing books geared towards laymen or using other such popularity techniques and shenanigans. And I personally think it would be a shame if wikipedia further succumbs to that bias, to the bias of the laymen and the provincial-minded. It would be unfortunate indeed. -70.16.2.172

Note: I have gone through and retroactively signed all posts by User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:128.220.29.140, and User:70.16.2.172. To be fair I accredited each post to the username that originally posted it, although I suppose that was a waste of time because they are all obviosly the same person. --Starx 14:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how that contributes to this debate/discussion/thread, nor how it's obviously the same person (since same IP/username doesn't necessarily imply same person). It seems rather that you're trying to toss out a red herring and/or trying to throw this thread off topic. This thread is about whether the 'Shawn Mikula' page is a vanity page or whether it warrants being in wikipedia. I personally think it's not a vanity page and that it should be in wikipedia.66.119.34.60 14:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have more then one reason for believing they (and you also) are the same person. You all have IP address's or usernames that are used only to edit either this vfd page or the articles in question. You all have the same tendancy to revise and expand one comment 5 or 6 times in a row. At times one username has revised/expanded on a post originally made by another username. And finally you all share a common goal of vehemently defending the article. As to the reason this is important; it's because wiki policy specifically states that sockpuppets are not to vote in vfd's, that is the reason why people sign their comments. Plus it's just good manners to inform people of who they are speaking with. -> Starx 15:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Belief is a funny thing. As others have noted, there are no facts, only interpretations and beliefs. Thanks for sharing your interpretation and belief with us. -66.119.34.60 17:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse this poor language, please, but STOP THIS STUPID ASS DISCUSSION AND DELETE THE FUCKING PAGE! blankfaze 17:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is no excuse for such pubescent remarks, and let me add that I consider your reply ironic since you're one of the biggest culprits creating these vanity pages (just look at the large list of nobodies you've made wikipedia pages for), and yet you would have a legitimate biographical page of a "somebody" be deleted. Hypocrite. 66.119.34.60 18:13, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be a legitimate biographical page, but this could go on that person's website or personal wiki page. Encyclopedic relevance doesn't exist here. Delete. -- Stevietheman 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you think all the biographical pages created by Blankfaze (above) have encyclopedic relevance? In my opinion, they're all biographies of people of rather small stature, so why are they in wikipedia? In fact, I think I may go ahead and set them all up for deletion because I think they're all vanity pages and about people who lack encyclopedic relevance.70.16.2.172 18:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're finished editing your thoughts, I will endorse this plan. Anything in the Wikipedia that's not of encyclopedic relevance should be deleted. -- Stevietheman 19:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be taking this personally, and it really isn't anything personal. The vote will reflect whether or not the article should stay. If you see other articles that you think don't belong then please by all means put them up for a vfd. But the name calling and other personal attacks aren't necessary. --Starx 19:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
            • It IS personal, because all of these sock puppets are Shawn Mikula trying to make people think he's somebody important when he's just a grad student. Also, whichever of your multiple personalities threatened to delete other entries, don't try it wihout bringing it before VfD. RickK 20:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
              • in my opinion, those biography pages created by BlankFaze are not of any encyclopedic relevance and should be deleted. What's wrong with that? In fact, you want to talk about google hits, well I am getting few hits for the people that he felt inclined to write pages about. These pages he created are about nobodies and should not be in wikipedia.
                • The pages he created that you put up for VfD; I didn't look through them all but the first 5 or so that I did included several actors in currently running TV shows, a forensic expert who worked on a highly publicised case. There were all obviosly encyclopedic. Mikula is obviously not nearly as notable as these persons. If you wish to plead you case that Mikula is notable enough for wiki then do it in a respectable manner. But don't pretend that someone like Andy Dick is non-notable and deserving of deletion. --Starx 20:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I had never heard of Andy Dick before coming across the wikipedia page on him, and after learning of him, did not think he had any encyclopedic relevance. And I think I have a right to express my opinion regarding what pages do not possess encyclopedic relevance, as all of you have too. We all have a right to our own opinion, now don't we? (User:218.145.25.80)
                    • Encyclopedic relevance must have some research behind it, though; it cannot simply be an opinion out of one's ass. Andy Dick is a very well-known person to those who enjoy sit-coms. He also makes many appearances on talk shows. -- Stevietheman 20:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes, we do. But you are quite apparently basing your opinions of the Andy Dick article on the fact that Blankfaze wrote it, as opposed to on a neutral assesment. If you read the stub you would be that he is an actor who has been on several TV shows. Celebrity personalities are certainly encyclopedic. --Starx 20:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I know it's easy to rationalize things like you have, but the fact that blankfaze wrote the page was completely irrelevant to my decision that the page was not of encyclopedic relevance.
  • Delete - vanity. I would not have paid attention to this one except for his vandalism of many pages in retaliation for this nomination. - Tεxτurε 20:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you possibly characterize putting pages up for deletion that I thought were not of any encyclopedic relevance as "vandalism"? I think many people would agree that many of the pages I listed for deletion should not be in wikipedia.
      • No, I don't think many people would agree at all, I don't think any reasonable person would agree. --Starx 20:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • And so it comes down to a few people deciding what should get voted on for deletion. This does not seem like a democracy of knowledge to me; it sounds more like a beaurocratic dictatorship or something along those lines.
          • It's not as much a democracy of knowledge but a democratic meritocracy of knowledge, and that's how it should be. As long as you make responsible choices out of reason, you won't get knocked back as much or as hard. -- Stevietheman 21:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
            • a democratic meritocracy of knowledge is a worthy ideal, but it has not been realized here, even though you may choose to believe otherwise. What I have been exposed to here, in general (though there have been exceptions), is provinciality and insularity coupled with abuse of power.
              • Ideals are never achieved; they remain as goals we continuously shoot for. I've not noticed any abuse of power, but rather a lot of people who care about keeping the encyclopedia, well, encyclopedic. Also, you may want to come out from the shadows and sign your posts. -- Stevietheman 21:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly because your actions were viewed to be out of spite and didn't reflect any research about the articles you put up for deletion. -- Stevietheman 20:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't agree more with User:Texture. I wouldn't have cared much either way if it wasn't for his absurdly bad behaviour. That said, the guy does have a point in there being lots of other vanity articles on Wikipedia that should also go. Go ahead. -- Jao 20:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shawn_Mikula&oldid=3608481"