Jump to content

User talk:John from Idegon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ingoddess2805 (talk | contribs) at 10:02, 6 May 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Questions for a Signpost interview

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Center Line: Spring 2013

Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Gtwfan52,

This is gagegs (Gina), and I wanted to thank you for your help and advice on the Rittenhouse Elementary School article. I will be jumping back in the fray tomorrow, but felt I would be remiss in not acknowledging you today. This whole Wikipedia experience has been absolutely wonderful, and I am so excited to be joining this new (to me) world. You have made my first steps very easy and enjoyable, and I appreciate your efforts so much.

Now off to my non-Wikipedia world.

Cheers, gagegsGagegs (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

As to your deletion here, appropriate refs are fine in lieu of a wp article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough referencing to reliable sources to show notability sufficient to support a biographical article is fine. A mention in one publication that a man may have ridden with a person who would later be President is not that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I read your edit summary to state, as your reason for deleting the entry. Your edit summary gave as your reason for deletion: " notability is generally established by the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That too is the generally accepted criteria for many, if not all, here at Wikipedia. Does it serve anyone to dredge up the exact policy WP:NLIST? Most school articles are edited primarily by SPA editors and telling them that they can add anyone they want if they can reference it is not really productive. Sorry if you disagree, but you will not sway me. I have edited thousands of school articles in my time here and it has never really served any useful purpose in any of them to encourage the adding of unlinked or red linked subjects. A military officer is not notable unless he did something notable. You don't inherit notability from who your commander was any more than you would from your father. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. (and -- if it were correct, I don't understand why that would have not been your first response, above). See wp:listpeople {"If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E."}. As to you having made many edits -- kudos. I've made ten times as many. That's irrelevant. We shouldn't be making up rules that are not rules, and acting as though they are. That's simply not cricket.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you quoted says exactly what I stated above. I don't see your problem. You have to have enough referencing to support an article viz. notability and your references have to connect the subject to the article containing the list. That was not there for the fella at hand. Additionally, there is a Twinkle warning that states "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you." So, like I said, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that you deleted material on the basis of an edit summary that incorrectly stated what the rule is. You deleted an entry that had a ref. Your purported reason for deleting it, as reflected in your edit summary, was your assertion that -- despite the fact that a ref existed -- "notability is generally established by the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject." That was a completely misleading statement, as to wp policy. WP policy specifically states that a ref may be sufficient. As to some twinkly language that some editor wrote -- that isn't policy. The policy is stated in the guidelines that I quoted to you. An appropriate ref is certainly sufficient. We should not mislead editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I completely disagree with you. The policy you cited does not say that all you need is a reference. It says you need referencing sufficient to support notability for a bio article with some narrow exceptions, and the referencing has to connect the person to the subject of the article. That wasn't there, and as I said, there are plenty of Wikipedians that agree completely with me regarding the need for an article. (see WP:WTAF) The policy you cited clearly states that you must provide enough referencing to create an article, so why not encourage that? Again, I will say that we will apparently have to agree to disagree on this. I hold you no ill will and I hope you can respect my logic enough to give me the same. Cheers! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "an appropriate ref is certainly sufficient". You completely disagree? Your edit summary failed completely to indicate that. It did not state at all that the ref was not the ref that was needed ... to the contrary, it suggested that generally refs would not suffice. That's completely wrong. And above -- you indicate that you mislead editors because you think it is for the good of the project to indicate what the guideline actually states. That is not appropriate. BTW -- if you check my edit history, you will see that I often delete non-notable entries from lists. That's not my problem. My problem is when it is done in a misleading manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poke :)

Can you take another quick look at American Canyon High School? I'm done, though I didn't delete them all, a nd I'd like a second opinion. Thanks. Revent (talk)

sure. In a few. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you might find [1] and especially [2] amusing. Revent (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. I have seen some pretty stupid vandalism on school articles, but those are pretty strange! happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Gtwfan52. Thank you for your comments and help. I am still feeling my way around Wikipedia, and am probably making more mistakes than doing any good. I think I'm going to stop for the night, and will pick this up when I'm fresh in the morning. Goodnight. gagegsGagegs (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review

Hi Gtwfan52. Thanks for the quick review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wolfman Mac's Chiller Drive-In and a big thanks for helping out the folks at AfC. There's been a big backlog there ever since Chzz (talk · contribs) left. I'm not sure if that was before your time or not. Anyhoo, I just wanted to say thanks.

The article at AfC easily meets WP:GNG as it's a national program that's been running for several years and has plenty of WP:RS references. I submitted it before I got all the references on because the backlog has been about 3 weels recently and I figured I had plenty of time as most everybody has been working the back of the AfC queue. I'm going to re-submit it, but wanted to speak to you first to see if you had watchlisted it. I didn't want you to think I'm just re-submitting it for no reason. So I figured I'd ask if you were going to review it again or if you'd rather let somebody else handle it. I know it takes a while to review and didn't want to add to your workload. If you're interested in reviewing it again, I'll work on the refeneces first and not bother re-submitting—I'll just stop back here. If you'd rather let others review it, I'll re-submit and wait for others to work their way through the queue until they get to it. Thanks. 64.40.54.51 (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Gtwfan52. I have re-submitted the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wolfman Mac's Chiller Drive-In article for review. Could you please look it over when you have the time? Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.55 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! That was blindly fast. Thank you ever so much for the help. That was very kind of you. All the best. 64.40.54.55 (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read it first....

It didn't take you long to jump onto my article about Julius Katz. But you didn't bother to notice that the living person actually died in 1999. So that particular template you installed (about living people) doesn't apply.

This is not to say that the article is not without its faults. It was pretty hard to find much actual biographical data on this person although there's a lot of references to him in publications about his roles in government, or statements he made. The two links I posted contain most of the info in the article, in one form or another. That's not a whole lot, but it's hard to say that Katz is a person of no significance. If you feel you can improve it, there it is - I'd like to see it expanded but I don't have time for more research right now... Breffni Whelan (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. MY read on BLP is that it also applies to anyone who may have living relatives, but that is somewhat inconsequential. I think the ruling policy would be WP:DIPLOMAT and I do not see "participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required." I assume you realize that you can create articles in a sandbox and develop them there without putting them into mainspace? But when you put an unreferenced article into mainspace, especially about a person, should it surprise you that it gets PROD, CSD or AfD? If you do not want to see your articles challenged, finish them before you bring them into the encyclopedia. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank the Academy...

Thanks for the badge, Gtwfan52. I'd wear it if I could... --Ratha K (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Welcome back! It's a little late, but I just noticed you are back now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Help

Hi Gtwfan52,

I had submitted an article on 'Cullen Investments', which was declined on 17 April 2013. Here's the link for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cullen_Investments

Previously the article was declined on 31 March 2013 due to insufficient references considering which the reference list was updated considerably.

This time the reason for rejection is 'promotional stuff'. I'll be grateful if you can help me with the editing and successful submission of the same article. Additionally it will be good if you can point out a few lines in the article which sounds like promotional stuff.

Thanks

Ingoddess2805

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_from_Idegon&oldid=553756192"