User talk:Bgeelhoed

Thank you for the new Poisson sampling and Sampling design articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LiTrSa42008Geelhoed.svg

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Bastiaan Geelhoed. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. PDCook (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bastiaan Geelhoed

The article Bastiaan Geelhoed has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

autobiography of a non-notable scientist

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PDCook (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies

Greetings and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. You removed the prods from Sarah Song (professor) and Sara Van Aken, which is fine. However, you stated in an edit summary that autobiographies are not forbidden in Wikipedia. This may be true, but they are strongly discouraged, as indicated in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Any autobiography should have extensively been review by others before publishing. As for determining if these were in fact autobiographies, I think it is fair that if they are created by a username that strongly resembles the article name and there is no user page that indicates otherwise, we can assume they are autobiographies. Nonetheless, any pages that are believed to be autobiographies may end up on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Regards, PDCook (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, both articles contain useful information in my view and should not be deleted. We cannot be 100% sure the articles are autobiographies and even if they are, this is not forbidden. The articles were written in good style, so it looks they were reviewed before publishing. Moreover, by having the article on wikipedia, the article can evolve further. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Again, please review WP:autobiography and WP:notability. These are not my personal opinions, but are WP policies. Regards, PDCook (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi again, wikipedia policy does not dictate that articles should be deleted just because of the suspicion that the articles could be autobiographies. The policy strongly discourages autobiographies, but does not forbid them. It is true that autobiographies may be deleted or edited by others, but this is true for all wikipedia articles. But in the case of these two articles, I simply disagree with deletion at this moment, because I think the articles contain useful information and should be allowed to evolve in a normal wikipedia-way. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

It's not just that these articles were autobiographies. It was that they may not meet the criteria for inclusion per WP:Bio. Sarah Song probably squeaks by, but there was consensus that Sara Van Aken did not. Regards, PDCook (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Sarah van Aken

Nothing is showing up under that name. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the article was deleted. Is there any way of undoing this deletion? This because, I think the deletion was not justified by wikipedia policy, see also above discussion. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

No log at Sara van Aken either. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here it is, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Van Aken. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one voted keep, I don't see why the article should be undeleted. It clearly did not meet WP:Bio. PDCook (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have voted to keep it. My attempt to keep the article on wikipedia is not visible anymore on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Van Aken, but I did make this attempt. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The deletion discussion was open for 7 days and you did not comment there. If you have new sources that demonstrate notability, you can show them to the administrator who deleted the article. Regards, PDCook (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like to show this information to the administrator who deleted the article. I asked cirt to undelete the article, so I can explain notability by editing the article of Sara van Aken. Regards (Bgeelhoed (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

AfD nomination of Edward Fletcher (actor)

An editor has nominated Edward Fletcher (actor), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Fletcher (actor) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. PDCook (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request

I respectfully request that you stop hounding me. It is clear from your contributions that you only participate in articles/discussions that I have tagged or suggested for deletion. If you wish to participate in saving articles from deletion, you can check out the proposed deletion list and the current deletion discussion list. Thanks in advance, PDCook (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PDCook (talk | Pdcook's contribtions) , it is not my intention to hound you. I have also tried (unsuccessfully) to stop the deletion of another biographical article in which you were not involved. It is not forbidden to look at the list of user contributions of other users (you just did the same with me). And you also started working on the John Vandenbergh article after me (so who's hounding who in that case...). It is a right for all wikipedians to express their views. In my case, my view is that several of the biographical articles you nominated for deletion should, in fact, not be deleted. Please do not take this personal. Regards, (Bgeelhoed (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Self-published material

Hi; I see you've said on more than one page that Wikipedia doesn't forbid self-published sources. I have to tell you that it actually does; see the relevant section of our verifiability policy, which says (and I quote): "Self-published media are largely not acceptable [...] Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:TreasuryTag, "largely not acceptable" is in my view different from being "forbidden". The latter is much stronger; the former indicates that in some cases self-published sources may be acceptable. I agree that self-published sources should be used with caution and that they should not be used in the same way as third-party sources, but that is not the issue here. (Bgeelhoed (talk))

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Visman (disambiguation), Bgeelhoed!

Wikipedia editor Tony May just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

you need to add a {{dab}} note

To reply, leave a comment on Tony May's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]