User talk:Dkriegls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Dkriegls' talk page


http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/isabelle-barbara-hall-fiske-calhoun/Content?oid=2362649 This is the 7 Days (Burlingon, VT) magazine that published the obituary.

Archives

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg


Art Spiegelman article and Ladybelle Fiske[edit]

Hi-- Perhaps this is the wrong place to write to you, not sure. Art Spiegelman, whose page you said you felt I was not notable enough to merit mention on, had a long and intense relationship with me and with Quarry Hill. If you look at his new book, Co-Mix, there is a strip called "Grain of Sand" comics. Down the side of one of the "I"s in this title are the words, which may need to be read with a magnifying glass"-- "I love you, Ladybelle."

There are also many photos, quite a few of them presently available on FAcebook (run a Google search on Art and me and look for Images and you will probably see them) showing Art and me together.

Our relationship was probably the closest thing Art had to a marriage before he met Françoise Mouly (while he and I were again engaging in a renewed love affair, but I didn't know of her till later, when we became friends). Many of our mutual friends would affirm that I was a profoundly notable person in his life. I am not sure how to "prove" this, or even if it's worth bothering with, though I am working on a memoir in which he is mentioned. I feel that perhaps the Wikipedia rules on this sort of thing are too rigid. Take a look at the items I have mentioned. Thakns Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

While I would personally have no problem adding a mention of your relationship, Wikipedia guidelines are biased against non-traditional relationships, and another editor would just delete the entry. This bias stems from our desire for vitrification; and sadly, traditional relationships like marriages are easier to verify. While I believe you when you say you were more than just a girlfriend, an "I love you" in print and some Facebook pictures are not enough to meet WP:Verifiability. I can sympathize with your frustration as I spent more than a decade trying to convince people that my lover was more than just a "girlfriend". Long ago editors decided that mentioning non-notable girlfriends was not encyclopedic information. What you would need: A mention of you in some significant way in one of his works (not identified by a pseudonym). What is significant? Not just a story about dating you, but about you being some significant part of his life. I know this is still vague, but if you find something, bring it to me and I will put give you some feedback, and put it in if I think it is proper. If you think I am being too timid on this point, feel free to petition another editor for help, but I will always be happy to review any edits you wish to have made. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

HI Dkriegls. The last thing I can think of to say re Art Spiegelman and myself is that he has already noted me by name in MAUS (the Prisoner on the Hell Planet section). He says, "I had just spent the weekend with my girlfriend, Isabella. (My parents didn't like her.) Indeed, there was some question in both our minds whether his mother had (horrible!) killed herself because she disapproved of me as a "Goy) (My father was Jewish, but my mother was not). Along with all the other things that Art has said and done to mention me-- the mention of Quarry Hill and my father and "my girlfriend" in MetaMaus, pp 24-25, and all the other stuff, I feel he has made a case that I was an important person in his life. The fact is, no one else was with him when he went mad (as a lover) or when his mother died. We spent that year together and moved in together in Brooklyn in the fall. We spent the next year in a dark, Manson-like (no killing) commune in New York. Many friends of mine would be glad to affirm this relationship. I believe Wikipedia is too fussy about this stuff, whether it's that the editors are fearful that they will be sued or what. It seems obvious to me that I was important to him-- otherwise, why does he keep mentioning me?

I am writing a book about my life in which he will not be a major character, but he will exist in a space appropriate to that which he did occupy in my true life. We were friends till the mid 1990s. Thirty years! My husband and I took care of his kids on numerous occasions. I know that nothing I can say or do will convince Wikipedia that I was a significant person, but I just want to state it here because it is true. Thanks and good luck,

Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way... I have lots of friends who know of our relationship. I have photos. What does a person need to do???Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Re: Maryanne Krieglstein[edit]

Hi there Dkriegls, thanks for your patience. Having reviewed again, the conclusion I keep coming back to is that there might well be a reasonable stub (or much shorter article) to be written here, but the sources simply do not support an article of this length or detail. For example, I spot-checked one listed fact: having lived in Morocco, sourced to a document authored by Werner Krieglstein. This isn't mentioned in the document and, besides, your father, her husband, would not count as an intellectually independent source. I would be happy to review this if rewritten solely from sources not written by a Krieglstein, and very strictly adhering to information contained in said sources. Looks like you have received similar advice on the draft page, and I do agree with it. I totally get why you would want to write an in-depth bio of her, as she's quite an accomplished lady—however it seems as if Wikipedia is not the place for this treatment, at least not at this time. Let me know if you do write a shorter version. Best, WWB (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to look this over. While I understand the need for a conservative review due to the primary author's familial relationship with the subject, I am not sure I understand your critique. First: I understand that to WP:STUBIFY would suggest "an article that has some verifiable material but is otherwise full of original research, self-published, or primary sources". There are no self-published references, and I'm fairly sure there is no original research. ("Morocco" should have been referenced to my dad's book, while the rest of that sentence was properly referenced to the journal article). That leaves only primary sources. While I accept that I may be wrong, it is my opinion that the only content wholly reliant on a primary source are factual listings of her publications; and the first two sentences under Academic that mentioned her degrees with only the PhD dissertation itself as reference. The dissertation is behind a paywall, but lists all three of her degrees and graduation dates on it, for which I believe I only stated the facts of dates and locations received. I'm fairly confident the rest of the article is referenced to at least one source published by independent third parties.
Second: In regards to citing references written by the subject or their spouse but published by independent third parties (i.e., your critique of citing my dad's journal article). I understand this to not only be acceptable when used for non-contentious biographical information, but widely practices on Featured Articles. While I don't know of a Wikipedia policy directly addressing this, I do know that WP:BLPSELFPUB allows for this type of citation for non-contentious biographical information from self-published materials; so I can't imagine materiel published by independent third parties would be more restrictive. WP:ABOUTSELF may be more apt, but allows for generally the same use for non-contentious material that isn't the primary focus of the article. I looked for Featured Article examples to make sure I hadn't been misunderstanding this policy with all my other editing. After reviewing just five biographies I found two that cited only the subject as a primary source for biographical information. J.R.R. Tolkien's Featured Article widely cites his personal letters throughout the article. Specifically, all four sentences of the Family section were solely referenced to a collection of letters he wrote and illustrated for his children. In Ronald Reagan's Featured Article, his 1990 co-authored auto-biography and his memories as recorded on The Reagan Diaries are the sole citation on several pieces of biographical information throughout the article; specifically this quote "At Gorbachev's request, Reagan gave a speech on free markets at the Moscow State University".
I would love your feedback, specifically: A) do you think I am being too defensive about these points due to my COI; B) would you mind giving more specifics regarding what you think should be deleted and why (since I'm not seeing it); C) or should we just consider this a difference of editing opinion on policy and leave it at that (perhaps taking it back to the article for creation page). Always a pleasure; cheers Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey again, sure, let me keep the focus on sources and material included because I'm best qualified to discuss that. So yes, I'm afraid I still have major concerns about sourcing: the Personal life section includes her birth date, but that doesn't appear in your father's book that I can tell. It does say she was born in Chicago, but it doesn't say "South Side". Perhaps I am being overly stringent on the latter point, but it's representative of other issues. For instance, I couldn't follow all of the sources later in the section, but I'm skeptical that these includes her children's and grandchild's names and birth dates. Even if verifiable, I'd lean against inclusion unless one or more were notable figures themselves. Other details selected are unverified or off-topic, such as the use of the gym and auditoriums as presentation spaces for her work. I'm sure you're not making it up, but it doesn't strike me as significant information, and I'm even more sure the Chicago Tribune story linked does not go into that much detail. Meanwhile, I see a lot of incidental coverage in local and student pagers—here and here—and many first-party sources such as the College of DuPage, GuideStar, Family Shelter Services. Perhaps I was too extreme in suggesting that it should be a stub, but I do think the article needs to be less detailed, more conservatively sourced, and then it would have a much easier time at AfC. Let me know what you think, WWB (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


WikiProject Research Invitation[edit]

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Lists of People[edit]

Greetings and thanks for your many good edits. I take issue with some of your recent edits to List of people form Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with your categorical statement: "Note: · Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. · The article must mention how they are associated with Ann Arbor, whether born, raised, or residing. · The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited. · Alphabetical by last name please. · All others will be deleted."

While a WP article is evidence of notability, it is not the only evidence. Reliable third-party references may provide the same, according to WP:CITY and WP:LISTPEOPLE. I have tried to help with "inclusion guidelines" on the talk page for the list in question: "While a WP list should not include non-notables, it need not be limited only to those with Wikipedia articles. Many well-maintained lists allow individuals with reliable third-party references (NOT their own web pages or blogs). See WP:LISTPEOPLE As the header states, the list should not include those who merely attended the U of M (There is another list of University of Michigan alumni), but it can include faculty or alumni whose work and fame are associated with Ann Arbor. And please add inclusive dates, at least for deceased individuals!"

Among your recent deletions, artist Emil Weddige and organist Marilyn Mason were and are certainly Ann Arbor notables. Finn Froding (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. The citation for Emil Weddige was this UoM faculty page. It makes no claims about the individual that meet WP:Notable people criterion. A quick google search produced no WP:Reliable sources. If you know the subject well and think they are notable, it shouldn't be too hard to find a good reference. Feel free to add the name back if you find one. The citation for Marilyn Mason was broken so I could make no assessment of their notability by it. I did a little digging and just found a Wikipedia biography for her though (my Google search wanted to go to the rock artist, so I didn't see it before). I'll add her back. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop making false claims in category name discussions[edit]

You are not a scientist, but a politcal idealogue, who should stop trying to falsely claim to be a scientist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please enlighten me, how am I not a scientists? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

hey[edit]

Thank you. Im currently a pro wrestler in indiana. Im originally from Joliet Illinois. I've been doing it for 10 years. Im currently trying to get into WWE Tough Enough.I grew up with the guys from Five Pointe O. Thank you for the pointers. --Scarecrowfelson (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fun! Well, feel free to ask me anything about Wikipedia editing. I don't bite and I'll try my best to help. However, if you want to know more about the community of editors that are into professional wrestling, check out this Wikipedia user group, here we call them WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)