Talk:Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist)
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This page was nominated for deletion on 5 October 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
This individual tried to put up a Wikipedia page of himself several years ago and after investigation by Wikipedia it was deleted. He's now come back and done the same thing. Basically, he is self-published. He collects his numerous blog posts and puts them into 'books'. Then he declares his 'collected works' to be more world historically valuable than the collected works of Luther and Calvin combined. Basically, he's a narcissist.
you could link to his website http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
Yes, that is a good idea -- just did so. What is the background on this? Armstrong has a solid list of books and publications by independent and respected publishers, as well as articles in various journals and magazines. Why was it flagged as "non-notable"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durandus (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure. I looked up other apologists that I am familiar with and their pages aren't up for deletion. The only difference between these individuals is education that I can see; though the official positions held by the others are also of note. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
for Reddogsix: Please explain why you undid the consideration for deletion after the subsequent edits.
""This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (October 2012) This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (October 2012) This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (October 2012) ""
1) Armstrong has a long and established record in his area. 2) There are no self-published sources on the page 3) All the sources are reputable and independent third party publishers. If you want to clean up the citations, please do so.
I do not understand what your continued concern is. In the meantime, I am again undoing the flag and ask that you are more specific about your concerns.
Yes, this is Dave Armstrong writing. As I have discovered again and again, going along learning all this Wikipedia stuff, here is another area that I just learned today (though if I had thought about it much, I probably could have figured it out). First of all, I thought the "game" was that these nicknames were supposed to guard total privacy. I despise nicknames on the Internet myself, but since it was the way things were done here, I played along with it, with no intention whatsoever to deceive; simply to be anonymous like everyone else; and so I wrote in third person (lest anonymity would be kaput, as it is now). I read today that a photograph should be added to the article, so I jumped through all the hoops to do that, seeing that the easy way was to upload one's own photos. I realized that it attached my nick to it, so that has led (I presume) to people figuring out who I am. Now I have read the articles concerning "Autobiography" and "Conflict of Interest." They make perfect sense (as do all these Wikipedia Guidelines I have read so far). The former states: "you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself." This was pretty much my sole motivationBold text for getting involved in this in the first place. I didn't set up the article about me; nor did I do so in the past, when there was one for a short time that was taken down. I hadn't added one word to Wikipedia up till the last ten days (though I use it constantly, and am a big advocate). Nor did I intend to edit the article itself, at first. I merely wanted to make points in the AfD page. The trouble was that there were so many distortions, and only a few people on a few occasions spoke up on my behalf. Therefore, I got drawn into it, since I simply wanted to set the record straight, and it is a pet peeve of mine (as it is for many authors) to be accused of being merely a self-published author (as I was at first). "Beeblebrox" (apparently some sort of overseer), noted on the AfD page: "there are also some very odd objections with a dubious basis, as well as some backhanded accusations of bad faith." That's him saying that, not me. This is verification of an objective and factual basis for why I got involved. I don't care one way or the other whether I had a Wikipedia page devoted to me or not, which is why I've never tried to put one up all these years (though I was falsely and publicly accused at one point -- some years ago -- of doing so), nor encouraged it, including in this instance. My only concern was accuracy and elimination of distortion and nonsense claims about my work (i.e., those that are objective facts, such as published books and articles). Thus, that is what you can see that I added to the article. No one else was doing much of that, and so I did it myself (not knowing about this policy that I shouldn't have). I simply added facts: books, articles, citations, Site Meter numbers. I did so mainly because folks kept saying there were no outside references. You see now that there are dozens of those, that I have added. It's copiously referenced, and I believe it is in line with Wikipedia policy (except that I was the one who added all of them!). Obviously,. I have bias when writing about myself, yet the biographical section, as far as I see, simply states facts. The rest is a listing of my writing and articles about me. I wasn't trying to puff myself up. Everything there is a verifiable factual matter. A fact is a fact. I backed it up with 22 footnotes. I saw that the deletion controversy was closed, and so I decided to add all the sources that were relevant to the page, in an effort to overcome all the objections that had been made about poor or no legitimate references. Once I got involved, I was a perfectionist about it (as usual!). And it was fun. I had put all i wanted to put in by evening today. Prior to that I had decided to give up on it, as can be seen in my previous comments, because it looked like it was a waste of time and that it would go down no matter what I did. Whatever happens now, my concern remains, as it has been all along, for accuracy and fact (and objective-as-possible neutrality, just as Wikipedia seeks). If the article is deemed insufficient for Wikipedia; fine. That's for others to decide. It's never been an issue for me before and it won't be now. My position is that if it remains up, it should be factual and not a distorted travesty. If the latter is what happens, minus my active participation, then my position is that I prefer not to have a page devoted to me (i.e., my work) at all, as I receive more than enough opposition and public slander in my occupation (and plenty of positive affirmation as well). Once certain sectors in the religious community find out about the page they may very well try to come in and write nonsense, as it is. Balanced opinions pro and con are fine, but distortions of fact and intent to harm reputations are not. I am happy to comply with whatever rules will be enforced now, because I was ignorant yet again about them, and understand lots of things about Wikipedia policy much better now. I just wanted to set the record straight (here), because I can see how my motives could be greatly misinterpreted! Thanks for hearing me out, and sorry again for the length (and all my past mistakes and ignorance), but I think anyone can see that I had to make several points, to explain my unique position in all this. I've been completely honest and frank with you, and would be glad to engage in further discussion, if that is desired by anyone. Logos-Word 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logos-Word (talk • contribs)
You see how new I am at this stuff once again, because I didn't know how to sign my name. LOL I just learned this very moment about the four tildes. Before that I had just copied how others signed their names. The photo I put up was another fiasco, which I feel I have to explain. I wasn't sure if "published" meant "officially" with licenses and copyrights, etc., or simply put up on a site. I thought it was the former. Wrong again! In any event, it is my own photograph, taken in my living room, so I can hardly have violated copyright in any serious sense of the word. No one else would have the copyright but me, because n one else took the picture, right?!. I used this photo because it was the most high-rez one that I had, and it was completely my own. I am very curious to see how all this business about the page turns out (assuming people take me at my word). Now we'll see if I sign my name right :-) . . . Logos-Word (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing before retiring for the night: I wanted to thank "Uzma Gamal" for his apology on one of these other pages. It wasn't necessary at all (I had nothing against him/her/it personally, but it was a very nice gesture, and appreciated. Logos-Word (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)