User talk:Ryan Lanham

Welcome!

Hello, Ryan Lanham, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Anonymous anonymous 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former AfD'd articles[edit]

I'm taking a look at them, working a bit at formatting them in accordance with how Wikipedia articles are supposed to look etc. A few notes:

Disposition, formatting etc.: try to always write an introductory paragraph that briefly presents the topic and explains its significance. In a biography, one wants dates of birth and death, what the person was, and what the person was best known for. The subject of the article should be in bold.

Categories: add categories to articles, and add sort keys when apicable, for instance for names to make them sort under Lastname, Givenname, like this: [[Category:American political scientists|Mosher, Frederick]] Categories make it easier for someone with similar interests to find the article. Just don't overuse them, add the most precise category or categories possible, not the categories higher up in the hierarchy tree, but occasionally more than one to make the article findable from different directions. (If you find my explanation confusing, you'll probably learn better by just looking at how it is done.)

I notice that you add red links or have, in a few cases, separate articles on published books and articles. You might consider merging these with the biographies of the authors, to make those into fuller and more complete articles. You will see a lot of articles on individual published books on Wikipedia, but for works by individual authors, my view is that it is better to limit that to cases where the biography of the author is getting too long, or the treatment of one particularly important book and its history of reception and interpretation would get too large in the context of the author's article (obvious examples being things like The Origin of Species or Das Kapital). I think my view of Dwight Waldo would be more complete if I could read about The Administrative State in his article and in relation to his other publications and the development of his thought. If the section on the book ever gets too large, you can split it off again into its own article but leave a summary of that article in the author's biography (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

For collective works, journals etc, something else obviously applies - you should probably write something on the Public Administration Review.

Assessments and opinions: always try to attribute and source these. Don't just write e.g. that something was a seminal event, or that a person or publication has had wide influence - try to find someone else to quote or cite who says this. Obituaries are useful, if somewhat hagiographical at times, but also book reviews and a variety of other sources are useful to source opinions. This has to do with the Wikipedia neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability policies. It is OK to include opinions, but it should always be clear who holds a certain view. Contradictory views should be given room in reasonable agreement with their significance - i.e. you don't need to include every fringe viewpoint, but those views which are widely held or have received wide notice should be mentioned.

Sourcing: touched on above, but more of a technical issue: you may consider looking at Wikipedia:Footnotes and using the <ref></ref> system described there. It is very easy to use: you can add the footnote text with the references at the part of the main text it is supposed to support, but it will automatically be displayed at a section at the bottom of the page where you write <references/>.

OK. That's it for now. Good luck! u p p l a n d 06:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Editors guideline[edit]

Hi!

I noticed from the village pump that a series of articles that you edited concerning public administration were proposed for deletion. Though they eventually survived, you seemed to (initially, at least) have been dismayed via the process, and had some comments on the AfD discussion concerning how Wikipedia deals with experts. I, and several other users, are working on a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Expert editors, which seeks to improve the ability of experts to make meaningful contributions. The proposed guideline is not a major change in Wikipedia's operations (we're not proposing that experts be given greater privelege--that would be a significant overhaul that probably couldn't be implemented without support of the Wikimedia Foundation, etc.); but it seeks to clarify the role of experts (and non-experts) in improving the encyclopedia. We're seeking comment and suggestions, and welcome your input (if any) at Wikipedia talk:expert editors. Thanks!

--EngineerScotty 21:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward W. Soja[edit]

I have just deleted this article under WP:CSD, rule A7, because it was an article that did not assess the significance of its subject. I have left a copy of the sentence you wrote in the talk page Talk:Edward W. Soja; you can start from there if you want to create an expended article that includes evidence that this person meets the guideline WP:BIO. - Liberatore(T) 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated this article (I was about to add a bit too it anyway), and moved it to Edward Soja, but it really ought to have had more content from the start. I was trying to be helpful but I'm afraid I know nothing about postmodern political geography, so this is the limit of what I intend to do. It establishes notability in a formal sense (distinguished professor etc) but doesn't explain what he is known for. u p p l a n d 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science WikiProject[edit]

Based on your userpage, you might be interested in joining the History of Science WikiProject, if you ever decide to get back into editing. You can browse the lastest project newsletter to see what some other editors have been doing lately with the histories of science, medicine and technology. Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Norton E. Long[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Norton E. Long, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dennis Ippolito[edit]

I have nominated Dennis Ippolito, an article 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/Dennis Ippolito. 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. Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Ryan Lanham! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Louis C. Gawthrop - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Howard E. McCurdy - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Richard J. Stillman II - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Paul P. Van Riper - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
John Rohr - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Gary Wamsley - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Charles Goodsell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tulsa Community Foundation for deletion[edit]

The article Tulsa Community Foundation is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulsa Community Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Center for Public Administration and Policy[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Center for Public Administration and Policy, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.cpap.vt.edu/richmond. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox; talk 09:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Center for Public Administration and Policy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Public Administration and Policy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Public Administration and Policy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Widefox; talk 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Max O. Stephenson Jr. for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Max O. Stephenson Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max O. Stephenson Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of New York Community Trust[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on New York Community Trust, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Samuel Krislov[edit]

The article Samuel Krislov has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]