User talk:David FLXD

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|David FLXD}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Please only edit BELOW this line

Please place any talkbacks or new sections at the bottom of this page.

Bob Harper aka Robert Harper follow up

Hello David. Me again, the terribly polite Joanne Sala. : ) We had a holiday yesterday and it gave me time to think about your response on Tuesday(much appreciated) and my subject's notability within Wiki's parameters. You said I need a "fairly short, punchy opening lead which makes the point about why this guy matters," so I took a stab at it. What I wrote is not punchy and short yet, but I would love your feedback on it before officially submitting it if you have time. Again, I'm not sure if what I wrote addresses the notability criteria, but just to give you context, the person, Robert Harper, is certainly widely known in the greater Hollywood community. Anyways, here's what I propose: "Througout Robert Harper's 30-year career in the entertainment business, he has worked for some of the most interesting and dynamic people in the media world today, including Barry Diller, Rupert Murdoch and Peter Chernin. During his long and successful career, Robert has been intimately involved in either the development, production or marketing of over 400 major motion pictures. He has worked directly with some of the most brilliant and successful directors of the last quarter century including James Cameron (Aliens, The Abyss, Titanic, Avatar), The Coen Brothers (Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing), Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands, Planet of the Apes), Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs Doubtfire), David Fincher (Fight Club), The Farrelly Brothers (There's Something about Mary), Bryan Singer (X-men, X-men 2), George Lucas (Star Wars 1, 2 and 3 as well as the re-release of Star wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi), Baz Luhrmann (Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rouge), Steven Spielberg (Minority Report), Peter Weir (Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World) and Sam Mendes (Road to Perdition) to name a few." Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneSala (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Too long, that's for sure! Maybe too much emphasis on "worked with others" and not enough on "responsible for production on" or "credits include". Shorten the list at the end, keeping just the really big movies. Aliens, Titanic, Avatar, Planet of the Apes, Fight Club, X-men, Star Wars. Use something like "examples of some of Harper's films". You have said 400, so people will know there must be a lot more. We are not a marketing department! I like your short list of people.

PS please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. Let's see what you can do in the article and I will have a look sometimg in the next 24 hours. David_FLXD (Talk) 05:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Do you use irc at all? You should get on the AfC irc channel if so, much easier than using talkbacks ;) avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 13:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Days

Hi there, I'm working with you on this one to get Dave Days unsalted so we can move Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Days to mainspace. I have submitted a DRV request here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_July_6#Dave_Days. Zad68 18:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zad!

Heading text

Frank E. Snodgrass

Hi David, Thank you very much for your recent help. I think I have finished editing for the moment and would be happy to put the page up now but just wanted to ask a couple of questions. 1. As explained, the pictures I loaded came with an unreserved permission to use them from Peter Brueggeman Life, Health, Marine & Earth Sciences Collections Coordinator Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives Curator UC San Diego Library 9500 Gilman Drive #0219 La Jolla California 92093-0219 USA pbrueggeman(at)ucsd.edu - is there any chance you can just put back the pictures I had loaded using the correct codes? 2. Once a wiki page is linked, do I need to keep linking every time the name is used, e.g. Walter Munk, or Scripps? Obviously, I have not done this. Many thanks for all your help Silvergirl27 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Re. 1. I'm afraid you will have to upload the pictures again (if, as I understand it, they were deleted by an editor or a robot for copyright violation). In this case, that's just a WP way of saying there was no registered permission on them. What does "unreserved permission to use" mean?

It seems clear on the face of it, but can you give them to someone else, and can that other person then turn around and sell them? If the copyright owner has intended, in giving them to you for absolutely free use, with no strings attached, then effectively the owner has put them into public domain, and you choose that option when uploading them. If the owner has given them to you to use freely and, say, copy and distribute freely, but asking that use be attributed back to him, then there is such a licence which you can choose. In the first case, you should make sure you are registered on WP Commons (activate your global registration in Preferences, if you haven't already done that), and upload to Commons. In the second case, upload to Wikipedia only, and choose the appropriate licence.

The page you intend to use the images on must already have been created in Wikipedia main space. So, for that reason, I'm going to go ahead and put the article online so long.

Re. 2. No, good practice is to wikilink only the first mention of a name (where there is an existing page). Where there is no name page yet, then we don't put a link in, yet. (No red links is good form!)

I must say your opening paragraph is much, much better - the reader can see right away why Frank Sndograss was a notable person!

I will create the article in mainspace now, you should get a confirmation message on your talk page. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 15:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lukas (Blogger)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paul_Lukas_(Blogger)

Do I think you have a vendetta against me, or Paul, no. Maybe you have one against my last remaining marble I have left.

(By the way, I do kid around a lot.)

But, on a serious note, do I have this whole thing backwards. Or, got the right idea, but with the wrong efforts?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but let me say this: the first time I saw the article, there were no "reliable" sources, decline, end of story. Not a lot of patience with explaining to the contributor, not with "(blogger)" in the title! Second time around, I saw you'd largely addressed the sources issue. You had shown enough evidence, taken together, that he could well be worth an encyclopedia entry. If I mentioned it again, it was to say that you need to put the emphasis on the best sources, as far as possible. Yes, I did say "take out most of the blogs and self-references", but that was in the expectation that you would be able to find other refs of the conventional type. Wikipedia has its rules and guidelines, but we are also allowed to bend them when it seems to be necessary.

What I try to do if establish that he does what I say he does, then try to prove that someone noticed that he did it?

Yes, pretty well put! If he's written a book, you can reference the book, but that doesn't make him notable. Good sales figures on the book, now, a reference to that will by itself show notability. If he writes regularly for a big newspaper like the NY Times, that shows that a lot of people will know of him. Notability again. And if there are independent, reliable figures on the no. of hits on his blog, that too. The combination would be enough. We are currently reviewing a YouTube performer with a massive fan base, and it seems the WP admins are leaning towards approving the article, so there is hope!

Then come to my next question. Where do you draw the line on someone who free lance writes, and independent sources? He has contributed many an article to many a media outlet. Certain things, where he was a staff writer, I understand are off limits, but, does one article take that away too?

If he is a regular staff writer, that doesn't mean the references are completely off limits, but they must be accompanied by outside references, and they must not be used as the sole substantiation for dramatic or controversial statements in the article.

-- SeanPat73 says 03:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say plainly: I believe you have a worth while topic here. It will take a bit of work to show it to everyone, but I think it can be done. You may consider changing the title to "Paul Lukas (writer)". We WP reviewers' blood pressure goes up when we just see "blogger", "YouTube" or "outstanding, amazing, wonderful, groundbreaking, trend-setting...."! It seems to me that PL is really a writer who just happens to work primarily in electronic rather than print media. Keeping in mind what I've said here, go back and look over the comment I made on the article, particularly the "things to do to improve the article". David_FLXD (Talk) 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Internatioal Article

Hello David FLXD,

Thanks for your advice on my article about Hope International. I have gone through and shortened several sections in the article and tried to take out unnecessary detail. Would you mind taking a second look at it when you have a chance?

Thanks again for your advice- it was very helpful.

RunLeahrun (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)RunLeahRun[reply]

Great- sounds good David. No rush. The articles I used to make comparisons were Finca International, International Justice Mission, Grameen Bank, Special Olympics and Bank of America- just for kicks.

Thanks!

96.225.134.115 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)RunLeahrun[reply]

David FLXD-

Wow! Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate the time you took in making the revisions. You're correct- though it is difficult for me to do without some of the info I had in there- its omission does put a different spin on the article and it is more encyclopedic. I see how some of the facts I had in there, though relevant and from outside sources, lent a slight bias to the article. Your notes explaining the corrections were very informative. I will go back through and add different sources for the citations and make a couple more changes and then send it back to you for one more look over before I resubmit.

Thanks again!

RunLeahrun (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)RunLeahRun[reply]

Bob Harper aka Robert Harper follow up

Hi David. Me again. Taking another stab at a punchy, opening sentence that will give Mr. Harper some wow, zing and notability w/out overstating things or talking out of turn. Let me know if you think this would fly and I'll edit my article.

In his 30-year Hollywood career, Robert Harper has marketed over 400 films including Avatar, Titanic, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Planet of the Apes, Fight Club, The X-Men, Star Wars, Home Alone and Marley and Me, and collaborated with some of the most dynamic and influential directors of the past quarter century including George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Jim Cameron, Tim Burton, Bryan Singer, The Coen Brothers and Baz Luhrmann to name a few. Robert began his career...

JoanneSala (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Joanne Sala aka joanne.sala@fox.com[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but WP:PEACOCK immediately came to mind when I read this. Doniago (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I told her she had to show notability in the opening para, so there.

Joanne, Never mind the talk page stalker, who just wiped out my entire answer to you with an edit conflict....!

This is much better. This can work. The list of director's names is too long, cut it back to no more than three or four, and if Cameron is in the list it should be James, not Jim: this is an encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia is not that familiar with him! You do, as Doniago points out, need to reduce the gushing adjectives, even where they are used in a secondary way. So cut "dynamic". I would say "...and collaborated with some of the most influential directors of the past twenty-five years, including George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Tim Burton."

(I just took the first four on your list.) If you put it this way, there are NO PEACOCK TERMS and everything you say in this opening para is a fact which can be substantiated. Well done! David_FLXD (Talk) 19:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric P. Hamp submition

David FLXD:

I am the daughter or Eric P. Hamp. He lives with me. He was shown a copy of the Wikipedia page and wanted some items cleared up. He initially gave his cv to a grad student at U of C and they were going to assist in 'cleaning' up and correctly entering factual info.

That seemed to prompt a response from Wiki editors? of stating on the page it was too unbiased and resume like.

Dad never submitted or wrote/created this page. Someone, somewhere did. I even tried, unsuccessfully, to contact that person (or who I thought was the creator of the post) but to no avail.

I then created an account with the sincere hopes of providing unbiased materials, in a short format but to the point. With the exception of the later materials, I used wording from the American Philosophical Society site that has info on him, as well as Wiki sites and general web sites to support information typed in his description.

I am exhausted with trying to figure out what has to be done and at this point after researching and trying valiantly to cite and do what wiki wants for this, am simply pooped.

I am willing to give it one more go, but I need SOMEONE's help at wiki that can provide more than, "Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
"

I did look at the Welcome to Wikipedia page as well at Talk and Sandbox, where I thought I was making some strides.

At this point unless I get some realistic help, this isn't going any farther.

So, where do I go from here?

I am respectfully asking for a human help with this and coaching if possible....

Thank you - Juli - daughter or Eric P. Hamp - creator of EricusPraticus wiki email... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricusPraticus (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juli, and thanks for contacting me. First let me say that I have every sympathy for your position and the trials you've experienced.

Let's start with the positives:

First, and most importantly, Eric P. Hamp does qualify as notable under the Wikipedia "Academic" guidelines, which means we can get an article accepted.
Secondly, you have good sources which, in general, support the article. That means the article qualifies for reliability.
Third, the article has already been structured within the general layout which WP likes to see used for biographical articles. Format: check!
Fourth, as I mentioned in my review, even though there may be a technical conflict of interest, we need not be bothered about it as there is no financial implication. Wikipedia is quite happy for family members of notable people to contribute to articles, so long as they remain objective about the content. Of course, we see a lot of material which is not at all objective, and we see a lot of submissions where family members think their relative was notable. We don't really have either of those problems here (see my next point).

The negatives:

I mentioned non-NPOV (non neutral point of view) tone, and gave one example. Yes, there are several instances, but the article overall is not that bad. Most of it is perfectly acceptable.
The biggest issue with this article is the lack of in-line citations where specific statements are made. This is very difficult for anyone other than the author to fix, as the reviewer does not know where among all the sources the relevant material is, to substantiate the particular statement.

I'm going to assume that you still want to see the article accepted and that, if you have some assurance that you can get to that point, and you have guidance to make sure you're doing the right things, you are willing to do the work. If I'm right in that assumption, then we can fix this fairly quickly.

I am going to do the necessary NPOV edit of the article for you, changing what I can change and highlighting where an inline citation, or perhaps a short quotation from the source, is needed. Don't worry about losing any of your work if I change something I shouldn't: on Wikipedia we can always go back to an earlier version of any article, ok? And if you feel you want to do that, I promise I will not mind a bit!

If you then are able to provide the inline references, I am confident that we will be able to accept the article.

The easiest method is to edit in reference tags like this:

<ref name="UNIQUE_NAME">Here would go an internet link, a book reference, whatever; the whole reference typed out ONLY THE FIRST TIME ON THE PAGE THAT YOU USE IT</ref>

On each subsequent occasion that you need to use the same source, you just use the short form:

<ref name="UNIQUE_NAME" /> (note the inclusion of the closing tag this time). For each separate source, you must identify it by its own unique name.

Then, change the heading name from "Bibliography" to "References" and immediately underneath that heading insert (type in) the {{reflist}} template (notice the curly brackets). This will automatically take all the ref name= references, number them in order of first appearance in the article, and present the reference contents in an ordered list.

I hope this is clear enough, and I hope it helps. I am happy to serve as your guide through this, for so long as you need the help, and at least until we get the article accepted. David_FLXD (Talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It helps a LOT if you always use the preview button before saving - but remember to save before leaving the article page! David_FLXD (Talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but need some clarification to proceed!

Hi, David:

This refers to your comment on my submitted article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Peak_Corporate_Network

On a general level, i understand why it hasn't been accepted, but I'm a little confused as to specifics. I studied up on notability and verifiability (in fact, made some changes based on earlier suggestions from the live chat pages), and can't see exactly why/which areas don't conform. For instance, i cited the website of the company only for a listing of their products, when their different subsidiaries came together under one name, etc., NOT to promote (advertise) the company. And in another area, cited one of the principals' newsletter/blog merely as an backup/example because i mentioned it - NOT to promote the company or him.

Can you give me specific weak areas in the article?

Thank you so much.

Ed

Ebdavids (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating my question another way!

To amplify (I hope not to be redundant), I think I understand the point you're (and Wikipedia is) trying to make, but I guess i need some guidance as to how to do a good, what-I-think-is-factual-and-neutral, job of decribing the company and its history without coming across as PROMOTING it. That's not my intention. Any guidance would be appreciated.

AND -- do i just watch this page for your response?

Thanks again.

Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebdavids (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Harper wiki saga continues - please help

David, I have no idea what went wrong or why another editor stepped in when we were SO close to getting my article on Robert Harper completed. I have no idea what all this means that was left in my latest correspondence from Udeeza. Will you take a look? Did I do something wrong? Did all my work and references somehow get corrupted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BobHarper JoanneSala (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Joanne Sala[reply]