Jump to content

User talk:Uncoverer

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

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Uncoverer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Tom 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Liberty Fund

[edit]

I have nominated Liberty Fund, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Fund. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note at Talk:Liberty Fund, but it'll soon be deleted, since the article has been. The copyright notice you posted there does not license the text under the GDFL; it limits the uses of the text, while Wikipedia's text is free for everyone to use for any purpose, not just those specified by the copyright holder- we don't have a legal right to use that text. If you decide to write an original article, make sure you include a few links to magazines, newspapers, or online journals discussing the importance of the Liberty Fund- that's what's needed to establish the organization's notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the terms of the Liberty Fund Fair Use declaration do not limit the use any more than the GDFL does. Read both carefully, as a trained lawyer should. The only limitation is that it be non-profit, which means the same thing as free. They are semantically equivalent. It does not assert any copyright on any derived works. I don't see enough to be a copyright violation in any case, but if necessary I can further rewrite the opening paragraphs of the article.

I also have an objection to such abrupt deletion. I am in the middle of writing these articles, and expect others to contribute. It's a good thing I can recover the work by hitting the back button of the browser, otherwise I'd have to do the work all over again. Such abrupt actions are really very rude. Whatever happened to the American notion of due notice and a fair hearing? Uncoverer (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a trained lawyer, but the copyright notice you posted allowed use of the text only for educational and academic purposes, and specifically said, "It may not be used in any way for profit." The GDFL does license use for profit, so it doesn't seem accurate to say that the two are semantically equivalent. Our article on GDFL says, "Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work." Of course, you're welcome to write an article about this subject that is your original work, but it does need to make it clear that the subject is notable by citing independent sources that discuss the organization's importance in its field; as you recall, that was the problem I noticed that caused me to nominate it for deletion, and it was only the copyright problem which made immediate deletion a legal necessity. I feel that I've been civil in my actions, even taking time to personally discuss the problems with you, so I'm hurt by your accusation of rudeness. You've been informed at every step of what was happening and why, so I don't understand your question about due notice; your fair hearing was the AfD discussion, which was quite brief because the copyright violation made the question of notability moot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rudeness lies in the immediate deletion, which, if one was not able to recover his work, would be an imposition on him to rewrite it. Let's make a deal here. I will re-write the opening paragraphs, which seem to be the only material you are challenging as a copyright violation, and allow the article to remain undeleted for a couple of weeks to give time for the evidence of notability to be provided by me or by other contributors. Uncoverer (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I offer a counterproposal; if you will put two or three appropriate sources for notability here, I'll undelete the article without the copied sections so you can continue working on it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about the following, obtained with a single, simple web search on the name:

Examples of events sponsored by Liberty Fund, Inc.:

Examples of cites to books published by Liberty Fund, Inc.:

Collaboration with notable publishers:

Reviews:

Death of a founder:

Uncoverer (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of sources, more than I even have time to read all of tonight. Which three do you think best explain what the Liberty Fund is and why it is important? I looked a few of them, and by coincidence, the ones I looked at are blogs, which don't meet our reliable sources guidelines. Can you let me know which three of those are the newspaper articles, magazine articles, or journal articles that explain the importance of the Liberty Fund? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put ### after a few that might be most convincing to you, but I tried to indicate with the titles what they are about. However, it is not reasonable to consider only "newspaper articles, magazine articles, or journal articles" when evaluating scholarly publishers. Newspapers seldom if ever cite publishers or scholarly events, or if they do, those don't make it into their online archives where they can be searched for conveniently. Similarly with general magazines. Scholarly journals do, usually by publishing reviews of books, which mention the publisher, but those reviews also usually don't make it to an online archive. I did provide one such review.
However, in examining the List of publishers page I find a lot of publishers, most of them less noteworthy than Liberty Fund, most of which have their own articles. I have done a few web searches of some of them, and find almost nothing on the publishers themselves as organizations. Only on their publications. By your criteria should all of them be deleted? If not, what criteria are appropriate for them, and how do those criteria apply to Liberty Fund? It would seem from that precedent that the only evidence needed for noteworthiness would be a list of notable books they published.
Finally, reliable sources guidelines doesn't forbid the use of blogs as reliable sources. It only urges caution. It is the reliability of the author, not the medium, that is important. A blog is just an online publication that can be produced and maintained conveniently through a browser, like Wikipedia, without having to produce it on one's local system and upload it. Many prominent scholars now write blogs. We have to adapt to the times. Uncoverer (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources you indicated, this one, is just what is called for. The others, as you probably already know, bear no resemblance to a reliable source discussing the group's notability. How many more hours should I spend wading through lists of irrelevant links and paragraphs of your ideas regarding how Wikipedia's founding policies should be rewritten? I'm thinking, zero. I'm removing your talk page from my watchlist; good luck to you in your future endeavors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found evidence of notability that FisherQueen agreed was what she was asking for. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncoverer#AfD_nomination_of_Liberty_Fund . I have removed the copyright violation and am now ready to re-create the article. Please unblock it. Uncoverer (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my money, the liberty fund is a notable organization. If a new article can be written without lifting strings of text from copyrighted material (read: summarize and cite only), I'm sure it would have no troubles passing AfD. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to find out is to unblock it so I can post it. Then everyone can comment on it. Uncoverer (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can also make a draft article in User:Uncoverer/Liberty Fund. Protonk (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Did that. Now what? Uncoverer (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to cite the reliable sources using WP:FOOTNOTES or author-date citation or anything that includes the source information at the end of the article and some indication of what parts of the article are sourced to which references. Once you've got a few sources there, you can ask any admin to move it to Article space over the old deleted page. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've done that. Better than has been done for others in the List of publishers. Is is ready to ask an admin to move it? I'd like to move on to do the same for the Constitution Society article. Uncoverer (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Constitution Society

[edit]

I have nominated Constitution Society, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Society. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most convincing evidence of notability that I am aware of so far are video or audio recordings of public events at which the Constitution Society was noted by name. They occurred in the Nov. 20-22 timeframe and are not yet all online for someone to verify, but a few have been put online:

Let's make a deal here. Keep pending the availability of the evidence online, which I will watch for and note when it arrives. In the meantime, I will encourage others to look and cite. Uncoverer (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the best evidence of notability is that someone mentioned them in a speech, but no reliable sources have written at any depth about who they are and why they are significant, they seem not to meet the notability criteria. You probably should have just said so when you first read the criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate what I wrote about the Liberty Fund. The Constitution Society seems, as I have been able to discover so far, to be mainly a publisher and an organizer of events, like the Liberty Fund. How did the publishers in the List of publishers get included? How many of them get discussed "at any depth" apart from the things they publish, unless it is about a buyout, merger, or bankruptcy on a financial page? I submit that if a publication is notable, then so is its publisher, especially if it has published a lot of notable publications, and especially if many of those are cited in other Wikipedia articles by many other editors. Uncoverer (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting changing the notability criteria. If that's the case, you should be discussing the ways in which you think the criteria should be changed on the notability talk page, not by simply creating articles that don't meet the current criteria. You should know, though, that the requirements are based in the verifiability policy, which state that all information on the encyclopedia should be verifiable from reliable, independent sources, so it isn't likely that you'll be successful in persuading the community to choose criteria that don't require reliable sources to verify the information in an article. Still, you're welcome to try persuading the community to change the rules if you like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not changing them. Only applying them consistently. The First Law is to "Decide like cases alike". If the subject is a publisher, it should be evaluated like other publishers have been, or else all those other publishers re-evaluated according to the criteria as newly understood. The evidence of notability for a scholarly book publisher is not going to be the same as for a rock star, politician, or multinational corporation. As an English teacher you should be sensitive to publishers, and able to adapt the general WP guidelines to them. Uncoverer (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

[edit]

The article you created, Institute_for_Political_Economy maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

  1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
  2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
  3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
    Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
    Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
  4. You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Uncoverer/Liberty Fund

[edit]

User:Uncoverer/Liberty Fund, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uncoverer/Liberty Fund and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Uncoverer/Liberty Fund 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uncoverer&oldid=611493241"