User talk:Biosthmors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Republic, Lost and So Damn Much Money[edit]

Might it be sensible to add a "see also" for something like the following:

So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government (2009) by Robert G. Kaiser

I have not read Kaiser's book, but the title and Kaiser's bio suggest that this could be an appropriate "see also" for Republic, Lost ... ???

I asked, because you deleted a broken link to a nonexistent article on So Damn Much Money, and adding a "see also" like this could direct the interested reader to a book that sounds relevant while also acknowledging the contribution of the person who added "So Damn Much Money" to "see also".

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, DavidMCEddy. I put it in further reading, as wp:see also says we're not to put red links there. We're a "nation of laws" here. ;-) Thanks for asking. Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the history, but the link could have been blue when created and changed to red, after some ranking editor speedily deleted an article on So Damn Much Money. Wikipedia has articles on books, but if a book is not "noteworthy", an article about it will likely be speedily deleted. That has happened to articles I've written, and I was discouraged from making other contributions to Wikimedia projects. We can't sacrifice the quality of Wikipedia for excessive sensitivity for the feelings of our contributors. In this case, the Wikipedia bio of Robert G. Kaiser suggests that his So Damn Much Money is probably carefully researched and documented. If so, it deserves to be cited, e.g., via a "see also" link to his bio mentioning that book, as I suggested. How can we get an evaluation from someone who has read the book? I haven't. Can you identify the person who added that red link? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi DavidMCEddy. It was created as red because it was created when the page was created[1] (that's the initial article) and if you click on So Damn Much Money there's no mention of it ever being deleted. (I'm pretty sure there's always a record left of a link has been deleted, if it has been.) If you look at Iran\xE2\x80\x93United States relations, for example, it has been deleted and you see a record of it. To write a new article about a book, I would recommend citing a few book reviews to show it's received attention and press. That way the article demonstrates wp:notability. Then I'd also state the bare minimum summary as to what the book is. This is what I've done with the article 13 Bankers, an article that has now remained for years after I started it.
I don't doubt that So Much Damn Money is carefully researched and documented. I don't doubt it's notable and that it deserves an article. But no, to answer your question, I don't know how to track someone down who has read it. (For what it's worth, I don't see how that would be useful for us to build an encyclopedia here either. =) ) And I also don't see why we need something in the see also section now that the book is in the further reading section. Did you see this edit I made:[2]? I'm sorry you've been discouraged in the past by having contributions deleted, but I can still help with the learning curve. I have had some content deleted as well, for what it's worth! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thx. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
DavidMCEddy, your user page is interesting. And I appreciate you being here. I have created Government by the People Act and I have also contributed to Move to Amend. It appears we have similar interests. I receive emails from rootstrikers. Let me know if you have any questions, or feel free to shoot me an email through Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Replied :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Wouldn't this be better if it was moved to one's user space? I have zero idea why it is needed?! Cheers! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)