User talk:Msnicki

What's it worth?

In response to your edit summary, I'll point out that there is also an interesting admission. Jesanj (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We decide things based on WP:CONSENSUS. You need to get that to remove a notability tag and you obviously don't have it. If the Marisol Deluna article is renominated for AfD or if someone requests a DRV of the last AfD, I will again WP:!VOTE to delete. The sources provided are clearly insufficient to support notability under the guidelines WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Without all the WP:SPAs who suddenly showed up to !vote last time, I'm pretty sure this page would be gone already. Msnicki (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm currently taking an alternate interpretation of the old deletion discussion. I was thinking Racoonish, Qrsdogg, and Alan the Roving Ambassador were keep votes that were not SPAs. Am I wrong? Jesanj (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Qrsdogg and Alan the Roving Ambassador basically offered only minimal WP:JUSTAPOLICY !votes in support of keep and showed no interest in discussing their positions. I understand the closing admin's decision to mark the AfD as no consensus but I stand by my opinion that were it not for all the SPAs (and all the dust they threw up, which most editors don't want to deal with), we'd have had a more policy-based discussion and the result would certainly have been to delete. But realistically, this is the wrong place to discuss this. If we're going to debate it again, we should do it at a DRV or a 2nd nomination to AfD. Msnicki (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right. But it's also nice talking in places where SPAs are unlikely to pop up though. ;-) Jesanj (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I made some edits. Do you still think it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO? Jesanj (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it still fails. If you hope to persuade me the sources are more than trivial mentions and meet the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources, you'll need to post links to the articles or to scans of them (posted, e.g., to Scribd.com.) At minimum, you'll need to provide some quotes. Msnicki (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

of course I agree with Msnicki here.Tao2911 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

and of course Jesanj simply ignored you, and instead instigated a pogrom against me.Tao2911 (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

O yeah. Msnicki, you might be able to access the sources yourself, such as through a local library's online database access, as I told Tao. I'm unfamiliar with Scribd.com. But I should be able to at least post some quotes sometimes. But at the same time, I don't understand how the articles can be trivial. From my understanding of significant coverage, it just means a source devotes detail to the subject, whereas trivial means the opposite. The headlines themselves show that the subject is covered in detail. Jesanj (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, headlines are what we use here. Headlines in non-notable publications about a figure who likely called, or had her press agent/friends call, to get the stories written in the first place. You continue to completely miss the forest for the trees - if Deluna hadn't written this page article herself (as the history of the page clearly shows she has, with her discussing the inflated minutiae of her thoughts, feelings, and biography) NO ONE ELSE WOULD HAVE, because no one in the industry cares (as someone in the talk record in the industry herself points out.) She is non-notable, and the page should be deleted. But no, you are just giving her lying, manipulative sock stars instead, and using wedding announcements as source for biographical material. She's working you just like another puppet. Really poor editing.Tao2911 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my point. The headlines prove the article was about her therefore it can't be trivial, according to my understanding. If the account is proven to be a sock I will withdraw the star. Until then I assume good faith. I conceeded on the talk page that those S.A. journalists may not have gotten their facts right about who wore her stuff. You convinced me there. So I'm ok with it being gone. But I don't see any reason why sourcing those educational details in the NYT is risky. Jesanj (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't judge a book by the cover and I can't tell what an article says just from the title. As near as I can tell, Deluna's sole claim to fame is that she designs scarves which she gives away because no one buys them. The subject obviously has delusional views of her own importance and she's been actively promoting herself with trivial mentions. Sight unseen, I'm unwilling to assume that the local paper mentions you've cited are anything but more of the same. But also, if you actually did go to a library to find these articles, why, oh, why didn't you think to photocopy them or at least copy down a few quotes? Or did you just see the titles in an index of periodicals and quit without actually reading the articles themselves? You appear to think the title is enough, so maybe that's as far as you got. You've got a couple thousand edits. Surely you know how this works. You want me to believe this is significant coverage? Do something to convince me. Msnicki (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Msnicki, how do you know it was her and not friends? I did not go to a library, I have online access. I guess we have different definitions of trivial. I will copy paste some stuff for you on the talk page, but if I copy paste a whole article isn't that a copyright infringement? Jesanj (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that distinction matters. Her friends aren't doing this without her knowledge. You can't quote the entire article in a citation but you can quote portions of it. You could also email me PDFs if you're unwilling to post them to Scribd.com. Msnicki (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Deluna sock/alias

Can you please help with the sock investigation of Elizabethcb123, with whom you seem all too familiar, so we can put an end to this charade?Tao2911 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much I can do about that. But I think the problem will solve itself if the page goes away through a new WP:AFD or a WP:DRV of the last one. That page is really the only reason any of those WP:SPAs are here. Msnicki (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

well the problem of deluna inserting herself everywhere as any number of socks might be hampered a bit. But yes, I hope we get action on all these issues. You voice might help on sock page, if you can document and/or describe where else you've seen questionable activity.Tao2911 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Pilgrims Society

I read your comment on a Noticeboard in reference to adding Marisol Deluna to the Pilgrims Society.

I grew up a liberal woman with this and other old men's school organizations. Not as a member (due to lack of interest, merit and being a woman) yet found it impressive that Mrs. Deluna was a member since women are rarely admitted. At the library in the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen of the City of New York the book which displays her design (front cover) and membership (back flap cover)- "The Pilgrims of Great Britain: A Centennial History (2002) - Anne Pimlott Baker, ISBN 1-86197-290-3, I believed the book was enough for an inclusion. This was wrong of me.

While at the GSMT this morning (where the Pilgrims keep an office), I read their by-laws. Members cannot exploit their membership publicly. Additionally, their membership is limited and spouses are not allowed. I am grateful her name was removed by another editor. There is a no association as per your question to the Pilgrim Society. This posting is meant to be informative and in good faith. She is not as notable as the others listed. You are correct. Yet my inclusion of her could have been damaging to her standing in that organization. It was not my place. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That was me that reverted the addition of her name and explained why. I have no way of evaluating the significance of Deluna's membership in that organization. I do know that she's not another Kissinger, Haig or Cronkite. I also don't really care who you or anyone else is in real life. You are entitled to respect for your anonymity WP:PRIVACY here until and unless you voluntarily give it up. But the appearance of WP:SPA and WP:COI is overwhelming and I'm entitled to take that into consideration, e.g., in being suspicious of whether there are sources WP:RS to establish significant coverage until I've seen them. So far, I haven't. What little is out there is just mentions, mere commercial plants in a hometown paper. Msnicki (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am glad you removed her name. Clubs have by-laws to remain private, and therefore much of her work and its outreach is hard to gauge online. You may not realize this, yet you are the one person on Wikipedia that encouraged me to become an editor during the article's AFD in order to be heard. This has proven to be helpful in my other interests as well. I appreciate that you have been civil to me- Even when at odds and more so require a learning curve by not road blocking my contributions. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)