User talk:Expiditer

Help request[edit]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag but you did not post a question. Please write out your question and when you are done, place back the tag. I or someone else will be along to help. Alternatively, you can join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

Expiditer (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your help, I did get to the IRC page . Expiditer (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and introduction[edit]

Hello, I am trying to get peer review on a article I have written but don't seem to be getting anywhere. Expiditer (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, Expiditer. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Expiditer/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Your Question re Grabill/Ponzi scheme[edit]

Thanks for your question. This place can be a tough place to figure out, with all the rules and guidelines. I’ve been around for some time, and I still run into something new just about every day. The general guideline for notability is Here, but I’d like to point out one section of it here. As it notes, when someone is notable for one event, there’s no question an article makes sense, but it isn’t always clear how to focus the article. As the good example indicates, the Rodney King beating incident is clearly notable, and the article should mention the person who shot the videotape, but it doesn’t make sense to have an entire article about that person’s life story. At the other extreme, when someone has a lifetime of fame, like Albert Einstein, we want to know everything about him.
Your case is somewhere in between, with an additional complication that I don’t know how notable the specific incident was. Bernie Madoff’s fraud was front page news. The Graybill Ponzi scheme was much less notable. It still may be notable, but you need more examples of coverage in the newspapers to TV to establish it. Then we get to the nub of the question. Should there be a bio of Graybill because he is notable? or an article about the Graybill Ponzi scheme because that one event is notable? I think the latter is easier to justify, but I haven’t done enough research to tell. If the article is about the Graybill Ponzi scheme, then all the refernces about the incident still makes sense, but there’s less interest in filling out the biographical details of the rest of his life.
Again, I want to emphasize I’m not saying the article should or should not be about Graybill the person, or the Graybill Ponzi scheme. I’m just trying to point out the guidelines and thinking that may go through the heads of other editors as they see what you wrote and either propose changes or just make them.
Good Luck.SPhilbrick T 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dale L. Graybill[edit]

The article Dale L. Graybill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Virtually no sources outside of US Gov't press releases. And even using the primary sources and the (very) few secondary sources, their story is has large holes, so it's not possible to explain what happened and when.

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. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]