User talk:Blanchardb

John Serry, Sr.

Please excuse if I mmake typos or stuff, my Internet connexion is still playing up so I am trying to go quickly.

Please blanchardb can you take a look at John Serry, Sr.. The self-stated primary author has, I think, left WP, and has stated this is about her father and that John Serry, Jr. is her brother (that comes under WP:BLP so I've not dared touch it). Whether they're notable I am not sure, but I doubt we'll get any more info if primary author has left, and I was tempted to prod them both (Sr. was prodded before and I did a lot of cleanup on that article, but apparently that was taken as interference, see at its talk page). I should really appreciate your views. SimonTrew (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ownership" of articles is against Wikipedia policy, regardless of the contributor's relation to the subject. The page I linked to here gives some advice on how to deal with such situations. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know about ownership or lack thereof, can you tell me (as you said "The page I linked to"? I'm a bit confused can't see any link. I was not suggesting she had ownership, only that it seemed that way. Kinda single-issue editor. I've never had an article deleted or even proposed for deletion, beyond stupidities like Ferret Ales (which you may note, on creation was listed as "speedy delete" by myself on its creation, I dunno I just had a bad day it was a small abuse I suppose but I think did little harm) and stubs that then either have been expanded or deleted cos there were other articles I couldn't find despite my best attempts, and trusted other editors' judgment when they've given anothe article I've then gone back and fixed up the links and the articles),

Sorry about my Internet connexion problems, I think I'd a hardware conflict I've whacked a couple of bits out of the computer and it seems to be working better now.

My own opinion I would like to keep Serry Sr as I think it is, after some tidying, a fair article, I think Serry Jr should go but not sure since it is BLP what to do there. I doubt anyone would support keeping it since only I and the departed author are watching it (I completely forget how I got round to these articles in the first place; I don't tend to use Recent Articles or Recent Changes etc and it doesn't link to anything I tend to work on). Maybe I got there via AfD but have only been looking at that for a little while. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The link I was talking about was to WP:OWN, but apparently you are aware of the policy. When I first saw your comment, I wanted to respond immediately, but that would have required me to sign on via an unsecured wi-fi connection.

The article John Serry, Sr. seems to need nothing more than tidying before it can be nominated in the Featured Article process, and basically that would involve just taking care of the issues listed on the template. The man's notability, as far as whether Wikipedia should have an article about him, cannot be questioned at this point: the article would probably survive an AfD with a speedy keep verdict. The article John Serry, Jr., on the other hand, could be nominated for deletion in good faith, but I don't think that will result in deletion.

As for your speedily deleted article... well, since it is your only fault as far as I can tell, I don't think there will be any consequence other than delaying a request for adminship if you even seek that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with everything you say. Sorry if the Ferret Ales] article caused trouble, though actually afterwards I found a lot of WP articles, not to that exact title but Ferret and Beer or Ale and was wondering whether actually it should be reinstated; I assume you realise my good faith there.

I am not particularly interested in Admin, I guess it would be kinda nice but I'm fine being a humble editor. Had I wanted it I would have gone for it before. But I've done about 4000 edits now and it's just fine for me to carry on the way I am; sometimes advice from more experienced people is helpful. I'm not a total idiot I think you see, but navigating WP can sometimes be tricky. SimonTrew (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Blanchardb & User:SimonTrew - Just a quick note to thank you for your input regarding the article John Serry, Sr. Please rest assured that I have not interpreted your collective attempts to edit the article as a form of "interference". My remarks regarding the activities of other editors such as DamiensRF relate to frivolous editing and an apparent lack of understanding regarding the subject matter of the article and the period in music history which it addresses. This is not entirely unexpected since the subject matter relates to a relatively obscure

period in early American music history. It was not my intention to either critique or question your editorial integrity. In addition, kindly note that my observations concerning authorship of the article were never intended to imply "ownership" or "exclusive editorial control" of the article. My only hope was to underscore my familiarity with facts relating to the article itself. As one of the musician's surviving sons (not daughter) I thought such facts might be useful. In actuality, it would appear that they are of questionable value due to policy restrictions (recall the COI complaint placed against the related article American Rhapsody). Kindly note that I am not concerned about creating a "High Profile Featured Article", promoting this musician for any form of commercial interest or creating a memorial or eulogy about him. My intention has merely been to document his professional activities for the benefit of future musicologists and students of early 20th century music within the context of a fairly simple biographical article. With this in mind, I have attempted to bring all relevant facts to the attention of your readers. This effort was successful as long as the article was submitted as a simple biography (At that stage it was rated as a B-grade and not subjected to conflict of interest complaints by the reviewing editor.) Evidently, this is not possible if the article is included within the Music Portal. Consequently, feel free to remove the article from consideration within the various Music portals if its inclusion creates so much controversy. I really do not object in any manner whatsoever and would be quite satisfied to leave the article as a simple biographical text (as it begain). It is quite possible that my endeavors should be directed toward established academics within known music conservatories who are better able to formulate an substanative analysis of the materials presented thus far. With this in mind, I shall be directing future editorial inquiries to such researchers rather than Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help and I shall look forward to observing your editorial changes to the articles mentioned above in the future. Adios --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)User:pjs

CNEP

Hello,
With the new title (National Centre for the Evaluation of Photoprotection) you gave to my contribution (CNEP vs Polymer failure) I cannot retreive easily my contribution by typing CNEP on Google (for example). Could you arrange that for me? I wish also to appear by typing "polymer failures" if possible.
As you will see, as you suggested me, I add a short sentence in introduction. I was also trying to add CNEP in title without success. Thanks a lot in advance for your help --Urcize (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Google search algorithm has decided that a bank with the same name is a more likely search target than the National Centre for the Evaluation of Photoprotection. There is really not much that anyone at Wikipedia can do about this. This problem is in the hands of Google, not us. Because of the size of the bank in question, I don't think even restoring the article to the title CNEP would change anything. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maderas Rainforest Conservancy

The MRC is indeed notable as it has been the field site for a number of noted primatologists and ecologists for years (Paul Garber - head of the American Society of Primatologist, Falk Huetman, noted Rainforest Ecologist out of University of Alaska Fairbanks, Andrew Halloran, Creator of the Elgin Center and primatologist specializing in primate vocal communication). I will continue to edit this page showing the peer reviewed publications which have come out of this site as well as the history of the organization. --Ozthechimp (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Botanic Garden

Dear BlachardB

From the help you have given me in the past I know you are a true wikipedian, good faith, do the rules, and a real so-and-so sometimes.

With fear that you are a deletionist and I an inclusionist, could you maybe have a look around the Botanic Garden, Botanical Garden, List of.... it seems quite clumsy. I thought earlier it was wrong to put Botanic as primary and Botanical at DAB, actually we've done some fix-up there to avoid repetition but it's still rather clumsy which should be where.

This came about from editing copy-editing Medellín, where a botanic garden was mentioned and I wanted to make sure botanic or botanical.

I will happply take this to a DAB pag or whatever, but before, I should appreciate your views. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear me Imay have spoiled your christianity post (not as such bit the layout). The rules is I can't go back to change that so I just say sorry not my intent. SimonTrew (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with any of these articles. They are perfectly legitimate lists and dab pages. Leaving redlinks on a list is okay by me, as it indicates that having an article on such and such botanical garden is desirable.

When it comes to public places, I am more of an inclusionist. To me, any building that's on the registry of historic places gets a free pass at notability, unless such a claim can be shown to be dubious. The same goes for botanical gardens, as there is rarely more than one per metro area. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Rick the Stick"....

I know Rick the Stick is not a notable character, such as a person in the news paper, etc. However Rick the Stick and other webcomic characters are part of a growing trend to bring comic strips to the masses online. Webcomics as a whole are being deleted from wikipedia as soon as they are posted, and have had mass deletions since 2007. These characters are fictional characters but are part of our society, no different than a TV Series (which continue to receive new postings and updates on wikipedia).

I understand that you have a guideline that you must follow to make sure that only notable pages are posted, and to help keep Wikipedia a safe and structured environment. My only concern is that artists such as Ken Drab who spend their money and time to create new characters and want to share their talents with others are not able to post their creations and ideas onto Wikipedia. These are notable characters and individuals at Convention Centers, and gatherings such as NEWW and Comic-Con. My only question is what makes a TV Episode more importan than a Web Comic. Most Episodes that are listed on Wikipedia never even went on to complete their first season before cancellation (Drive for Example) yet they are posted on Wikipedia.

I'm not trying to open the flood gates for mass works by unknown artists, just trying to get an understanding of what has to be done to make something such as a Web Comic notable and allowed for addition to Wikipedia.

Thank You,

--Tcmcelmurry (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Parkway Central Middle School

Why did you redirect it to Parkway School District????