Jump to content

User talk:Agricola44

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

Welcome!

Hello, Agricola44, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

—RuakhTALK 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Peskin

[edit]

Hi Agricola44, do you know any source (other than "The Mathematics Genealogy Project") which says that Chorin was the PhD supervisor of Peskin? I have some doubt, especially after reading this. Salih (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence
I, MacGyverMagic, hereby present you with a barnstar of dilligence for your clear reasoning in the AFD for Dean Saluti when most people try to rush such explanations. Well done! Keep it up. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WoS versus GS

[edit]

Hi, just saw your vote in the Dixson AfD. I guess it depends a bit on what time period one is interested in and what field. I understand that GS is superior for computer sciences, for example. However, in my field (Neuroscience and life sciences in general), it's awful. I checked a colleague recently: searching for "author:J Doe" (real name immaterial here) gave over 200 publications, although this person has published only about 110. WoS gave 134 (some meeting abstracts were included in both). The h-index came out as 17, but is according to WoS 28. The five most cited articles according to GS have counts of 146, 134, 117, 79, and 74. According to WoS this is 160, 130, 130, 106, 103. o in this particular case GS is way off, in counts of articles, h, and number of citations... It does like like, though, that Google is trying to improve GS, as a year or so ago things looked even worse. Not a major point, but I thought I should bring this to your attention. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I think it's clear that none of the current tools is optimal. The one glaring shortcoming I see in WoS is that the electronic version only goes back to the 1980s, and if you're interested in information before that, you have to go to your local academic library and take those giant hard-copy volumes off the stacks and start checking manually. GS is behind on a number of points too, as you say. As far as I'm aware, they don't divulge what sources they actually cover. This is in addition to what I think is the main problem with respect to many AfD debates that it manages to take in much of what is not actually considered to be archival scholarship. All of that said, I think the way in which AfDs are currently handled, i.e. "many eyes checking many different sources", is quite effective in arriving at the best consensus. Thanks again for the comments! Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It actually depends on the level of access that your library has to WoS. My online access goes back to 1900... As for AfDs, I havent been following them much recently, but the discussion seems generally to be on a somewhat higher and better informed level than was the case even only 6 months ago. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know. I wasn't aware that there were various levels of subscription. My apparently incorrect impression was that an institution either had access, or it did not. Anecdotal experience suggest ours goes back to the 80s and I've heard similar from people at other institutions, however, I think this makes it worth a trip over to the library building to ask more specifically about this. Thanks for the info. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

maximum entropy, may be interesting,

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Maximum_Entropy_Production Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective

[edit]
Two figures -- one is captured in crisp focus and the other is blurred.

The explanatory comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg were useful for me.

Pondering the array of views in this thread helped me to step back only slightly; but even small movements do evoke a changed perspective, a new appreciation of our focal point. --Tenmei (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the AfD thread resulted in an improved article. Let me take this opportunity to acknowledge your contribution specifically. Your pointed comment helped me to develop a broader perspective. My imperfect understanding of what WP:Notability and WP:PROF require may need further tweaking in future; but this was a constructive step towards something better. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartung

[edit]

You've asserted that John Hartung is notable, but there's no assertion of that notability in the article. Can you improve the article so that it gives an indication of why he's notable?   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I understand your concern, and I am dealing with the issue as well. However I am approaching to this differently.

  • In the articles of kind List of physicists or List of R&B singers I check whether the redlink is used in any articles which may give some hint of notability. If found none I remove the item altogether.
  • In the articles like List of Nobel Prize winners I verify using google if the entry is not a vandalism, and if not, I unconditionally leave it there.

The difference between the two lists is that the latter type is a claim of notability by itself.

Further,

  • If the list is embedded in a regular (non-list) article, then I tag it for citation, regardless blue or red
  • Redlinks in disambig pages are handled by disambig style guidelines.

Answering your last question, yes, I have already started work with missing TR35/TR100: Michelle Chang. - Altenmann >t 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The mind of a deletionist

[edit]

I confess that I am really mystified by the growing deletionist "cabal" here on WP. I happened to notice your account because of your lobbying for deletion of the biographical article about me. What's that about?! I mean, a !vote is fine, but arguing with every other !voter out of an apparent animosity? It's a strange urge, I think.

Now I recognize that my notability is borderline (as described on the AfD; where indeed I provided a bunch of possible sources, per Pcap's request there). Some of your comments are weird; people in professional communities do, y'know, talk with each other, so finding some evidence that I've previously interacted with colleagues is hardly the disparagement you try to draw out of it (e.g. yes, I do "know" Danny Yee–in a virtual way–because I wrote him after he reviewed my book, some years ago). But it made me wonder whether this animosity was personal to me in some way. So I took a look at the Academic deletion sorting page (which I've looked at before, but not recently).

On those academic AfD's, I definitely notice a strong deletionist bias in your !votes. It's not unreflective, I readily acknowledge. You !vote both ways, and give reasonable descriptions of your motives. What got me into more active monitoring and participation in deletion discussions in the last weeks or months was having noticed some truly rabid deletionists on software-related articles. The nominator of the bio of me is one (who has had some truly abusive behaviors associated with that deletionist mania--since long before I ever heard of him), and there are a couple others who always !vote "Delete" on anything about software (but especially FOSS). I think I really need to start watching the academic or biography AfDs too, though it becomes time consuming, of course.

What I wonder is wherefore the sentiment that WP should be as small as possible, or not include anything that Brittanica does not? If some academic has published a few books on "good" academic presses, and has moderate amount of cited biographical information, why do we need to delete that article?! Sure, maybe that person is not the "leading figure" in their particular discipline, but disk storage is cheap, and there is some number of readers who might be interested in learning about that person (they encounter them professionally, read those books in obscure corners of knowledge, see them cited in some other work, whatever). Or similarly (but outside your area of interest I think), what's the harm in having a cited article about some software tool used by tens of thousands of people?! Sure, it's probably not a household name, and the user community is a pretty small minority of computer users/developers. But someone finds it useful to research that particular tool, whether to compare it to other tools, evaluate using it, learn about its capabilities or creators, etc.

It's not like I don't know that there are silly vanity articles created of strictly-local musicians, or of just-released one-developer software products. Or even of the professor that some student liked, but who never really published or did that much or wide renown. There is some threshold to judge. But compared to 3 years ago, or 6 years ago, this threshold seems to have been pushed upward to to point of absurdity. I really cannot understand the motives for this... including yours (but likewise of dozens of other editors I've seen recently with similar attitude). All the best, LotLE×talk 23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking again, I think I partially confused you with Wikipeterproject in a little bit of my above comment. Still, the gist of my question about the deletionist drive is the same. LotLE×talk 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

Confusion or not, you're obviously carrying a lot of emotional baggage regarding deletionism. I'm not in the habit of justifying my actions, but since you took the trouble to vent here, I'll have a go at it.

  • Per your concern voiced above, be assured I have no personal investment in your AfD. I had no part in any of the article's history and had never heard of you before seeing the AfD on the academics AfD board, which I check regularly.
  • Your beef seems to rest with deletionists, which you rightly observe that I am not one of. I've never brought an article to AfD, but I do regularly weigh-in, again mostly on academic-related ones, according to what might be called "strict constructionist" interpretation of the guidelines, e.g. WP:PROF. I've voted many keeps. I also tag for notability where it seems warranted, etc. You've made accusations about your AfD being a personal attack on you, but I'm not about to get involved in a spat between two editors. I expect most individuals won't.
  • Though I know this happens on both ends of the deletionist-inclusionist spectrum, your aggressive posturing against deletionists carries some veiled tones of moral superiority that are out of place. There is no right-or-wrong position when it comes to this issue, which I would argue on the basis of the following: There are facts that are not worth knowing. Lest this be taken out of context, let me give an example. A large fraction of people in the world know that Barack Obama is the current US President and that is certainly a fact worth knowing. On the other hand, the number of blades of grass on your front lawn is a piece of information that is not worth knowing, not even to you, the owner of the lawn. That implies that the criteria that demarcate these two worlds, which we absolutely need in order to have a functioning WP, are arbitrary. In fact, you show your own bias above. In your belief system, articles about "strictly-local musicians", "just-released one-developer software products", and "the professor that some student liked" must go, but your article must stay. I don't buy for a minute the standard red herring assertions like "we should keep article X because disk storage is cheap" (which you actually said above). Rather, I see this as a question related to the reputation of WP itself. Physically, we obviously can organize vastly more information than paper-based sources, but this must be balanced against the "information not worth knowing" aspect of the average person regarding WP simply as something like a superset of Facebook. I think the current guidelines do a very good job of codifying this balance, and I go by them strictly. Often I argue to keep, as I just did yesterday on a different article.

I don't know how the debate on your AfD will turn out, but I hope this clarifies my position. Likewise, all the best. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your response. While I definitely do not think you are the most extreme of the deletionists, seeing your comments on some AfDs really shows that you lean strongly in that direction. It is a moral issue, FWIW. I have a whole bunch of colleagues/friends who have become so disgusted with WP as to stop constructive editing specifically because of the deletionist wave, and I am coming close to that myself (after 6 years in the top few percent of active editors). This perverse sentiment, in my opinion, is making a wonderful resources far less good than it could be (or than it was); if it goes much farther, I don't even think I can think of it as a wonderful resource anymore. I am myself pretty close to walking away from WP in disgust over the trend, which makes me enormously sad.
I guess part of the problem I see in your !votes, is that you judge things that should clearly be considered under WP:GNG or WP:AUTH under the hyper-strict language of WP:PROF. Of course WP:PROF is itself vastly more restrictive than it was a few years ago. An example I came across under current discussion is Tom Bramble. I had not known this individual before a day or two ago, but it looks like someone who is of reasonable reputation, and to be an article that is written in a neutral style with good quality citations. It's not the "perfect article", but it is a pretty good one. I've seen a number of other "Delete" !votes by you where I would make pretty much exactly the same point. In particular, this is an individual whom a good number of people might come across (e.g. by reading his books, or about the political organization he is on the executive of), and reasonably wonder "so who is this Tom Bramble person?" Why on earth should we deprive readers of good information that is already written and available through efforts of well-intentioned editors?!
In my mind, wide readership should be sufficient for notability (i.e. under WP:AUTH; not specifically about the bio mentioned). If 50k people have read works by an author, why on God's green earth shouldn't we have an article for some of them to find out biographical background on that author?! (the old 5k sales "author test" was perhaps too low, but that should have just been a nudge to the number, not throwing away a readership standard in favor of mass deletion). This is true for any genre, e.g., even readers of schlock romance novels are perfectly right to want an article on their favorite authors, and no good comes of deleting good biographies. Sure, WP:ADVERT is good grounds (though maybe for cleanup more than deletion), and a small vanity press publication isn't enough. As I wrote, I do think there should be some standard, but it really should be many times lower than the deletionist trend now holding sway. LotLE×talk 22:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Well

[edit]

What you're speaking of above (friends leaving in disgust) is most certainly a pragmatic issue, not a moral one. I know that people leave WP all the time for all kinds of reasons, just as people leave any other organization. Your real beef seems to be with the very existence of WP:PROF itself and how it's applied, e.g. in the Tom Bramble AfD. (Note that that article has also been argued on the basis of WP:AUTH.) I think the reasonable rebuttal against your argument, which essentially seems to be "just drop WP:PROF and use something more lenient like WP:AUTH" is that academics are also authors, essentially as a by-product of their work. Now, I already know that you agree with me (per Nirmala B. Limaye AfD) that not all academics are notable per se. This means we're again in the predicament of setting some reasonable condition, or "filter" if you like. And this is where reasonable people can and do disagree. It is not immoral or disgraceful to believe that guidelines in WP:AUTHOR are more for people who make their living at writing, e.g. novelists. In a sense, "prof" and "auth" are not even incompatible, for example professors who write say an influential academic text (like Burgess & Parks Introduction to the Science of Sociology) would pass on both accounts. What this boils down to is that there is no objectively correct way to set the notability bar. I hope you'll continue fighting for your position and will decide not to leave WP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Agricola44. You have new messages at Template talk:HTC Roshei Yeshiva.
Message added 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Joe407 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.World

[edit]

Hi Agricola44, Thank s for your comments about Mohammed Sanduk article. Your comments are really quite interesting and useful for me. I would like to mention:

• The references of the article are mentioned in the Google Scholar please search for M. I. Sanduk. But still Google Scholar can not show all the journals and publications.

• The article, that explain Bohm’s constant is published on “Indian Journal of Physics” (IJP) (Before 2004 it was called “Indian Journal of Physics and Proceedings of The Indian Association For The Cultivation of Science B”) , which is one of the International journals and published now by Springer the well known international science publisher: http://www.springer.com/physics/journal/12648 It is not an obscure journal!

• The very influential (unorthodoxy) researches, has its own journals like Aperone and others. Some of the electronically published articles in arxiv find a chance to be published in science journal ,” but some work, including some very influential papers, remain purely as e-prints and are never published in a peer-reviewed journal. A well-known example of the latter is an outline of a proof of Thurston's geometrization conjecture, including the Poincaré …”arxiv.

• Sanduk was head of laser engineering department in Al-Nahrain University, and is charter physicist. do you think he has no publications? He was supervisor for more than 30 post-graduate students. The present article is not a CV, but focuses on his distinguished activities.

• Iraq was isolated (1990-2003). During this hard period Iraqis had no access to internet. The connections with outside were censored, and the international scientific publication was impossible. His scientific articles (Like that of Bohm factor) were faced hard way to send outside of Iraq to be published internationally. At that time this was a quite dangerous attempt. So far Iraqi IT systems still needs to be developed. After 2003 he became head of laser engineering department, started contact with the international science community, got membership in Institute of Physics & the charter status, membership in American Physical Society, and started attending international conferences….. In an e-mail from Prof. Cynthia K. Whitney (Editor and Publisher) about the story of gear model she wrote “I have to marvel at the many hardships that some of my fellow scientists go through. Your story shows a lot of courage on your part. I sometimes wonder if America has started movement in a direction that is good or bad in Iraq, but your story encourages me that there is indeed some good developing there”.

• The present article demonstrates a hidden straggle to survive for a freedom of creativity. People in the west may have no idea about this type of hard times.

Thanks again U.World 3 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by U.World (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. Although the debate on this article is over, please let me respond to a few points. Major advances in physics typically find their way into top-tier journals, e.g. Physical Review. The red flag here is that the journal you're referring to is indeed obscure, for example that paper could not be found in WoS. Second, Apeiron specifically does not publish influential articles. It is considered to be a fringe journal by most physicists, as again evidenced by the fact that it is not indexed by the main services like WoS. Third, the claim that "Some of the electronically published articles in arxiv find a chance to be published in science journal, but some work, including some very influential papers, remain purely as e-prints and are never published in a peer-reviewed journal" is extremely misleading, basically false, and, with all due respect, reflects an ignorance of the way that physics research is vetted and disseminated – arxiv is basically for draft preprints – almost all work of substance goes on to be published in regular journals. I appreciate that this person may have worked under difficult circumstances, but I'm afraid that's not very relevant in this particular case. I see that the article has now been userfied into your user page and hopefully you can develop it further from there. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Karim R. Lakhani

[edit]

I appreciate your help pushing for improvement on the Karim R. Lakhani article! I've just added a bunch of news sources from major newspapers and journals talking about Lakhani and/or quoting him as an expert. Since you've been so involved and so helpful, I think it would be nice to hear back from you before I remove the {{notability}} tag. Thanks again! —mako๛ 15:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kresimir Chris Kunej

[edit]

I saw your comment on the article's talk page--thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to another AfD

[edit]

There are a few other articles out there like the bio of Jeffrey_Herebener:Mises Institute vanity pages for non-notable academics with WP:PROF and WP:UNDUE problems. One more, that of Jörg Guido Hülsmann has been nominated for deletion. After having seen your constructive input in the Herebener discussion, I thought I'd post this message here.Bkalafut (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GS h-index and notability

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pretty inexperienced about discussing notability for academics, and am looking for a bit of guidance. Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Herbener, where you stated that a GS h-index of 6 is way below satisfying C1 in WP:PROF, do you know what GS h-index would normally be necessary for satisfying WP:PROF? I wonder if you can point me to some discussion about this issue? Thanks, LK (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There isn't any specific statement in WP that I'm aware of, but rather a pretty strong consensus built-up over many academic-related AfDs (see archive) that h-index below 10 is not notable, between 10 and 15 is borderline (often going either way), and >15 is solidly notable. Importantly, h-index is not linear. So, for example, 10 is way more than twice-as-good-as 5. To give some outside-WP-perspective: the 15-20 range is typical of full-professors at top-tier research universities and APS fellows and 40-ish is National Academy territory (quoting roughly from the h-index article). Hope that's helpful. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, that's really helpful. If you don't mind, another clarification. When I did a Scopus search on "Herbener, Jeffrey", his author page displayed a h Index of 1; but you state that "GS shows an h-index of 6". Does "GS" stand for 'Google Scholar'? If so, how do you generate a h index using Google Scholar? Do you just eyeball the Google Scholar results and calculate it yourself? Thanks, LK (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GS is Google Scholar. You can an get h-index from any of the indexing services. There are many of them, but the main ones are Scopus, WoS, and Google Scholar. The squishy part of this method is that you will rarely get the same h-index value across the services. Generally, GS will give somewhat higher values because it counts everything, for example citations related to manuscripts on a pre-print server that haven't actually been published yet. I personally advocate WoS because it only counts citations to published journal articles from other published journal articles. The disadvantage is that WoS is subscription-based, so it's not available to everyone. However, these indexes usually suggest the same verdict when it comes to AfDs, as is the case in the Herbener AfD. Frequently, book publications figure into the notability argument too and here we normally use WorldCat to check holdings. Have fun. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, this has been really helpful. LK (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another query about using Google Scholar to calculate a h index (which I assume works by doing a search on a name, and going down the works listed until "Cited by ..." equals rank). I just tried to do that for myself, and find that if I try the query that catches all of my papers ('Khoo L'), I also catch papers written by other people. How do you handle this issue? Thanks, LK (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, false-positives are a problem, and quite a severe one if you have a fairly common surname. WoS has lots of auxiliary tools to filter these, for example if you know additional information like which institutions a person has worked at, you can easily eliminate hits that fall outside those bounds. In GS, it seems this process is much more manual. Sometimes it doesn't matter too much, for example if it is clear that there are false positives in the query list but that the overall h-index of that list is still not very high, I usually write something like "X only has a GS h-index at most of Y, which is not enough to keep". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Christel Miller

[edit]

Is it time for Christel Miller's AfD #2? I think it is. Lionel (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to initiate AfD. As you've undoubtedly seen from the history and talk page, there's very little information that can actually be sourced here and none of that lends notability because it's all stuff that occurred when this person was an undergraduate (scholarships and a contest). The article bills her as a filmmaker, but there's no demonstrable documentation that she's made any films of any significance. Nor have I found anything else of import she's done since graduation. Since the verdict in the last AfD was (inexplicably) to keep it, I have genuinely tried to clean up the article and remove all the (sometimes quite absurd) fanboy edits. However, in the end, there's essentially nothing that justifies this article's continued existence. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem Chand Pandey

[edit]

Dear Agricola44, hi. This is just a fiendly note to say I think your calculation of the Web of Science h-score of 3 for PC Pandey might be a bit (significantly) out. I think you have excluded lots of his papers (Institutions=SPACE APPLICAT CTR OR CALTECH NATL CTR ANTARCTIC & OCEAN RES JET PROP LAB , NATL INST OCEANOG, ANTARCT STUDY CTR OR INDIA SPACE RES ORG ) etc etc. I think he got some little medal (lots do) when at NASA/JPL/Caltech for some of this. Inclusion of these would I think substantially increase the WoS h-index (but it is still low - my guess would be around 7-8 (but it is a bit tricky to calculate)). I think h-indices are in a loose sense none linear and 7-8 might be massively bigger than 3 (and your figure is being quoted by others).I think notability in this case is not by papers but by esteem and awards and founding institions etc. Anyway Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]


Talkback

[edit]

Talk:Wright Brothers Medal

[edit]

Hey Agricola, you got one too! Mine is at Talk:Bert Bakker (publishing company). I thought I'd have a look to see what else the editor was working on after they dropped a note on my talk, and lo and behold, we're in the same boat. Take care, Drmies (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

[edit]

not a personal attack, merely advice that i know will not be taken. this editor, User talk:Jaque Hammer, ignores advice from user:DGG, and user:Sadads? wow, quite a twofer. there's a lot to do without this nonsense. maybe we should have some warning tags, for this behavior. Slowking4 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this case, but I do know that a belligerent tone and the phrase "cleanup my @$$" will be interpreted by many folks as being less than civil. Much better to use warning tags and to report if the problem does not resolve. Good luck and thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Synthetic logic

[edit]

I saw that you participated in the AfD for Stephen Palmquist. The discussion on his synthetic logic could use more discussion. If you're interested, see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic

Thanks!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

[edit]

Agricola, a large number of your posts of on Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher have contained personal attacks on other editors (e.g. the latest). I'd appreciate it if we could focus on content from now on, and particularly on the views of the reliable sources, because that's all that matters. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content is what I've focused on since the AfD, when it became clear that the "keeps" had carried the day. A very obvious edit war has now flared here and these are rarely productive. I've asked (pleaded, almost) for cooler heads. I'm not going to edit the article until folks cool off. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

AN/I discussion

[edit]

You may wish to comment here, as it pertains to a dispute you've been involved in. Skinwalker (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets?

[edit]

Hi, I came across, by chance, some old history Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci/Archive of which I was not aware before. It seems that we were accused of being sock puppets (of each other?). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's news to me too. I suspect that if you looked at trends from all the conscientious editors out there, they'd all look very similar:) Keep up the good work. Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is a happy hunting ground for deranged paranoiacs who find they can get away with behavior that would not be tolerated in real life. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hi again. As you are a regular contributor to academic BLP AfDs I thought you might be interested to know that there is a debate going on about that policy: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Christine Mallinson AfD

[edit]

Hi Agricola44 -- I've been offline for a bit and just saw your note on the Mallinson AfD ("Comment. I agree that the journal/citation/h-index perspective is not terribly relevant here, although it's false to say articles "tend not to appear on h-index listings" and that these are "explicitly for scientific fields". (I think what you mean is that the h-index numbers tend to be lower here.) Rather, book publication is the basic currency in her area of the humanities and I could only find the one contribution listed above. (Her CV concurs.) The book itself is not a "blockbuster", as judged by institutional holdings: hence my comment about being average. Indeed, in most top-tier humanities departments, this would not even be sufficient output to qualify one for tenure at the 7-year mark.") and just wanted to say that I didn't disagree with you at all, in fact I find you (with DGG and some others) to be among the most convincing writers in AfD, so I want to say I wasn't arguing against your assessment of the AfD, just the terrible way the nomination was started (as you noted, nom duly chided...); you write with sympathy and great ideas and I'm proud to work with you on making the encyclopedia better. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Maryańska

[edit]

Agricola44, I have decided to withdraw my nomination for deletion. I hope this doesn't leave you feeling like the rug was pulled out from under your feet. You advanced some excellent arguments against notability, but I think they are trumped by the sources that Msrasnw has provided. The latest one is particularly nice because it places a discovery in context. Still, I'm impressed by the quality of your thinking on this AfD. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, there are no hard feelings whatsoever. This was an open and honest debate in the finer sense of what WP should be! In fact, the most disturbing part of that AfD was not this or that !vote, but the statement by II, "Sad that we have to have a debate about it". What is sad is such an opinion – we should be debating a lot more of what is on WP. Thanks so much for your efforts! Agricola44 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I disagree with those folks on the disruptive part. I see AfD more as the legitimate "testing" of articles, which is one of the basic "checks and balances" if WP is ever going to be something more than just a fun diversion for bored workers or a website people use to point them to an (outside) authoritative source. The fact that anyone can create an article is both a fundamental strength and an Achilles' heel, the latter of which can only be overcome by constant and relentless testing. This is the price to be paid for dropping the restriction of expert authorship, as Scholarpedia and regular encyclopeds require. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Linda DeLibero

[edit]

I am going to re-post Linda DeLibero soon; I want to correct one thing: WYPR is NOT run by JHU. It used to be, long ago, but is completely independent now. So please do not raise that again.Critic11 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, free to open a new article on Linda DeLibero, but please allow me to give you some well-intentioned advice as someone who knows fairly well how Wikipedia culture and procedure work. First, I strongly advise against simply recreating the old article. That was just deleted after going through 2 rounds of AfD. Anyone examining your new article, e.g. a new page patroller will very likely see the history and will have a look at the deletion discussion – what they will see is that there were no procedural anomalies against keeping it and that may prompt a "salted" deletion, which will render it very difficult to ever recreate that article again, even if DeLibero does become notable (according to WP guidelines) in the future. And, under no circumstances should you play games with case, like creating "Linda Delibero" or some such – admins will see through this immediately and will likely interpret that as disruption. The only thing that will justify a new article, i.e. one that is unlikely to be deleted, is to find new information and you must make sure it satisfies the guidelines like WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Read these carefully because they're fairly specific and arguments that somehow your article is special and should be exempt carry little to no weight. So, my friendly advice is (1) don't rush to recreate the original article, only to have it deleted with salt, (2) take some time to have a more detailed look through all of her work and then "follow the trail" of that work to see if others have "noted" it in some way. Even for those sources that would "note" her work here, Wikipedia has rather specific requirements, (3) allow some time for DeLibero to have more of her work noted – a very common problem, especially for academics, is that they are on a "trajectory" of becoming notable, but their Wikipedia article appears too soon, (4) DeLibero is still living and this creates even stricter requirements for an article upon her, so bone-up on WP:BLP because this one is very unforgiving. I'm sorry the AfD did not turn out as you would have liked, but I hope this information will help explain the problems that the article had and will be helpful in your considerations of how to move forward. Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate your advice -- truly. But my problem was less with the WP protocols than with the misinformation like yours above. I felt like I was fighting fires of misinformation that editors simply post without ANY attribution. You were completely incorrect about WYPR. What is one supposed to do about that? Others were incorrect about needing verification for a married name use. That has nothing to with WP: PROF or WP: GNG. Critic11 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you're missing the boat here. The guidelines are "big picture" entities, and you're focusing on the minutiae of who owns a radio station. This matters not an iota. Ditto for her academic title, and various other aspects that are not relevant to proving notability according to the guidelines, but for which much argument was thrown up. That's how things work around here. In other words, your problem is indeed with WP protocols. You just haven't come to see this yet. (BTW, the issue of her married name, while having nothing to do with notability, is important, since this is a WP:BLP. As i said, that one is unforgiving.) When you strip everything away, here is what matters: Once at AfD, the burden of proof is on those who want to "keep" the article. (I often argue "keep" to save an article, as I successfully did on this one that just closed yesterday.) In the DeLibero case, reliable sources that proved her notability could not be found, so the closing admin deleted the article. Again, I urge you to not simply recreate the old article, lest it be deleted with salt. You'll be in a much stronger position if you thoroughly familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines (the rules of engagement here) and be prepared to argue them like an attorney in a legal case. However, you may then indeed find that there are no satisfactory sources for DeLibero, in which case an article for her is just not in the cards. Hope this helps. Agricola44 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with Critic11 that the deletion was not the right decision. I also agree with Agricola44 that creating the article now is not likely to be helpful and more likely to result in the article being SALT'd so best not to do so now. OTOH, I think that there is a general imbalance in the way AfD works. I've seen articles that have gone through many many AfDs, several of which resulted in Keep, but as soon as one gets a Delete vote, it's considered bad form to recreate it, while it's not so for renominating after a Keep. I wish that there were a mandatory waiting period of a year between AfDs on the same article (or recreating articles after a Delete vote); that would save editors time of making the same arguments over and over again. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
coming here on a somewhat related topic, I think she's notable, I think I can show it, and I intend to rescue the article. It will probably take a few months until I get around to it--there is quite a backlog of articles and AfCs on people in academic positions that need to be restored or defended or improved--several hundred. By the time I get to these, there will be several hundred more.
If you want to help on this sort of articles, add book reviews. they're the key factor in NBook, and consequently NAUTHOR, which is a much easier criterion to meet and especially to defend than PROF DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite good-faith checking by many eds, evidence in the last AfD was very weak. However, I will certainly be glad to change my position in the future if evidence is forthcoming:) Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
PS: What is the best and reliable source for book reviews? Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Never use that phrase, please

[edit]

"WIth all due respect" is one of the most offensive things you can say. It masquerades as politeness and is, at best, insolent. At worst it is far worse. If you want to tell me to go and fuck myself, do just that. It is precisely as uncivil. Fiddle Faddle 18:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding my statements here, I'll only point out that context matters and that you've presumptuously taken offense where none exists. I'll only ask that you have another look and I'll not comment on this any further. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • No. I took your words as a precise usage of language. You need to apologise, not rationalise. You have been unbelievable and unpleasantly rude, disguising it as faux-politeness. Now take your medicine and eat your humble pie with decent grace. Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gagnon

[edit]

You're right, but my practice in things like this is to make my comment, reply once or at most twice, and then stop. Anything more can be counterproductive. WP is full of cranks, and when one has in fact a reasonable case, it is necessary to avoid being mistaken for one. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's partially why you have a very revered "elder statesman" status of even-handedness and jurisprudence. I don't know which of the many argumentative/persuasive styles is the best, but I tend to take the "trial lawyer" approach of continually hammering-away on the basis of the demonstrable evidence – you can often run any "non sequitarians" out to the end of their logical rope. Of course, there are lots of cases where the evidence isn't clear one way or the other and I don't wade into those because any opinion I would offer would only be a result of some prejudicial position on my part. Anyhow, thanks for the advice and, although we've sometimes been on opposite sides of an argument in the past, I think WP has been a great beneficiary of your efforts. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Greg Retallack

[edit]

Hi. As a contributor to the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Retallack on Greg Retallack I let you know that there is a debate going on the article's talk page Talk:Gregory Retallack about how to implement the findings of the AfD . Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Robin Speilberg

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Spielberg should this be nominated for deletion? Fatpedro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_%282nd_nomination%29

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_(2nd_nomination). Benboy00 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davor Pavlovic

[edit]

Hi, I am sorry but I am new to this and was trying to leave a comment on the article davor pavlovic. Apparently you said that I was trying to interfere with the article , not sure how I did this? I agree with you that rarely can a scientist be solely credited with the discovery but I don't agree that it is only the last author who can be credited with it. Surely I everybody plays a role? Perhaps an article should be modified but not deleted. What do you think? All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musgrave james (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did say you were interfering and am sorry if there was some ambiguity. You willfully removed tags from an active Afd and were already warned by another editor on your talk page. Please redirect your discussion of the merits of the case to its AfD page. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Charlotte Wolff

[edit]

I think I'm done expanding for now; look again. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salby

[edit]

I'v researched and have pending an edit at Talk:Murry_Salby#Protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2014 to help address the imbalance, and return the focus to the reputable science work. I've included mentions of his two textbooks, and a mention of his papers.

I'm utterly lost on how to report on his many papers. Since you have more of a grasp on that could you look to writing a few sentences, highlighting the more notable papers? I think that could help the average reader understand his impact, and work. Eventually it may make sense to list all his peer-reviewed articles. But for now finding a way to denote which ones are noteworthy, and possibly reporting them in light of the subject areas covered would be very helpful. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Haskvitz

[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to say that I appreciated your comments on the AfD for Alan Haskvitz even though we were on different sides of the issue. I didn't reply because I was off WP for several days, but always enjoy discussing issues with you. We won't always agree, but so far that hasn't lowered my admiration for your care on these matters. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Likewise! I always enjoy debates at academics' AfD (win or loose) and feel this is one of the most important vetting processes that WP has available to it. Indeed, I wish every single WP article could be "tested" by AfD, but that would be impossible, of course. Looking forward to more debate...Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynds

[edit]

Hi -- Thought you might be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Lynds#NPOV_tag --75.83.65.81 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Bullpen_catchers Alex (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments

[edit]

Hi, Agricola44, thanks for your helpful comments on the Jacob Barnett article. I see articles like that linked to from Child prodigy and List of child prodigies, which are on my watchlist, and I see a disturbing pattern in many of the linked articles of editing based on sources that are not independent of the subject, but rather promoting press releases by a minor's parent(s). I appreciate you fact-checking assertions in articles like that. Keep up the good work. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the complement. That particular article still not in very good shape, in my opinion, and will need work, once the emotional level settles out a bit (i.e. needs work to put it into more conventional form of a bio). You mentioned a pattern. Are there other particular articles where this has been a very obvious problem? Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Viewfinder

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [1] Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WritersCraftHNU/Archive

[edit]

Unfortunately the checkuser found the accounts editing on Anne F. Walker unrelated, and the case was closed. However, I think that there is an obvious sock farm going on here, multiple users opening different accounts for the single purpose of keeping this article. I think I'm too involved now, but if another editor wanted to reopen the investigation with the new user Luckyjeane added to the investigation and just ask for a behavioral investigation without a checkuser, we may be able to get them blocked for behavioral and for re-adding content from the blocked account of WritersCraftHNU. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are 3 strong policy-based deletes and no real !votes for keep, so this page looks very likely to be headed for deletion. Given that the advocate for the article (who is very possibly the subject) and her meat puppets appear to be interested only in this particular article, no further action might be necessary. Agricola44 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds good to me, like I said, I figured at this point it should be coming from someone other than myself. Hopefully, like you said the situation will resolve itself. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prods

[edit]

an article tagged for notability no matter how long without improvement is not a reason for deletion; it's normally a reason to try to loo for sources for notability, and then to nominate for deletion if not found. Problem tags merely indicate problems that may or may not be addressable. DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • David, did you do any homework here whatsoever, or did you simply see prods and react? The articles you de-prodded have long paper trails that document editors' efforts to find proof of notability and their subsequent failures to turn-up anything. Here are some examples of just my own efforts from the Chris Griscom article:
  • "...because I cannot find anything myself beyond Youtube videos...", "I have been unable to come up with any other information or sources on this person" 20:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC).
  • "There's been no real progress on this article for almost a year, very likely because there isn't anything else that can be done." 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC).
and the Dying While Black article:
  • "I could find nothing more substantive, only the web flotsam of..." 16:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
  • "More than a year and a half later the picture is about the same, for example..." 13:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
So you see, editors have looked for sources for these articles multiple times for years and have come up with nothing. And, of course, these findings are consistent with the WP:PROD option that a deletion be uncontroversial, i.e. to give a shortcut for quick cleanup. But now, thanks to your de-prodding, which I can only assume results from your lack of checking the article histories/talk_pages where you would presumably have seen such documentation, that is no longer an option. You've just single handedly created a whole new level of bureaucracy for overworked eds to clean-up WP of these nuisance articles. So, thank you. I consider my time too valuable to unnecessarily repeat work, so these articles will now be someone else's responsibility to clean up...maybe yours? Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

delicate inquiry

[edit]

May I delicately ask what your knowledge of the science world is

Since you were so polite about it, I will in return, politely decline to say, albeit over here on usertalk since -- as you prolly know -- the wiki-tradition is that on article-talkpages we all ought to focus on the content (prose and sourcing), not the contributor. To include possibly-relevant but possibly-irrelevant personal characteristics. See User:MastCell #4: "If you have real-life expertise on a subject, do not under any circumstances mention it here".

  Anyways, no offense taken at your question, thank you for phrasing it thoughtfully. And yes, though I don't wish to disclose my social security number here on the 'pedia, to answer the implied question-within-the-question, I do fully understand that there is not actually a betting-market for Nobel prizewinners, and if there were, that any unpublished teenager would be the equivalent of a penny stock. The only bit I had trouble understanding at first, was that "tipping" was british slang related to bookies, and not something that one performs with bovines.

  Basically, on the substantive issues, I just disagree that we need to delete the entire five minute clip from the mainspace reflist, and all factoids therein, on the basis of their clickbait title, or even on the basis of containing some fluff. Mostly I work political articles, and believe me, if it was permissible to delete refs on the basis of the *title* of a magazine piece or a newspaper piece being NPOV, then 90% of the refs in political articles would evaporate.  :-)     If we deleted refs when ANY of their statements failed to be completely accurate and truthful, the political articles would have no refs at all. I don't think this is an overstatement. Anyways, I've had plenty of practice in plowing through fluff-pieces like the BBC Breakfast, and extracting the few boring dry cold hard just-the-facts snippets that the pieces can support. I don't think the BBC is real-world-reliable, but I do think they're wiki-reliable, and I also do think I can extract the good stuff, and mitigate the bad stuff, in a way you'll approve of. We shall see. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Agricola44, notice you have not responded. But you have asked additional questions, about me as a contributor, and my motivations. Again, such questions are not wiki-kosher methinks.

I'm afraid that leaves us with the question of to what degree you believe these stories. Otherwise, why pursue this, given the history and circumstances?

And later, again.

May I ask again as to whether you subscribe to any of the claims in these sources?

My personal beliefs (aka WP:THETRUTH) are 100% irrelevant. WP:NPOV is straightforward: reflect what the wiki-reliable sources actually say. That's what I plan to do. Your question-within-the-question, will best be answered, by seeing how I summarize a few example-sources, methinks. That said, if you want to chitchat further, I'm happy to do so, since you are maintaining an amiable tone -- please ping my talkpage.
    p.s. As a partial answer to your partially-implied-question-within-a-question, the surface-'why'-are-you-here, has a simple reason: I'm presently working on a new BLP-article about a child prodigy (now age fifty or so and thus with plenty of press-coverage about their achievements to pass WP:42), so I did a search for existing BLP-articles containing the phrase "child prodigy" to make sure I'm doing things well, and noticed the bug in the infobox of J.Barnett, started to leave a note about fixing 'cert' -->> 'doctoral student' on usertalk, then clicked on the AfD#2 out of long habit... and got WP:INVOLVED thereafter.
    Anyways, as you can see from my new additions to the talkpage, there are *many* sources available, and just citing four of them, whilst deleting the rest wholesale (BBC/Time/HuffPo/FOX/CBS/ABC/CBC/UsaToday/etc/etc), seems very wrong, to my wiki-eyes. That is my current motivation, no more and no less; I don't think deleting wiki-reliable material should be done without extremely good reason, for each and every proposed nominally-WP:NOTEWORTHY factoid to be deleted, and especially for each and every proposed nominally-WP:RS source to be deleted. I've seen too many politics-articles where content-disputes morph into try-to-delete-the-sources-disputes, or try-to-topic-ban-other-editors-disputes, and I don't like those types of situations, they are bad for the 'pedia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would help me to understand your campaign more is to know whether you believe any of these sources, because there are a number of indisputable facts in this case: (1) There oodles of sources for Jacob, many dozens at least. (2) They all have, to greater or lesser degree, some form of hyped nonsense of claimed advances, including besting Einstein's theories, disproving Big Bang, being "tipped for a Nobel Prize", etc. (3) The hype seems to have been engineered in a systematic way by Jacob's mother while Jacob was very young, which led to some regrettable performances like his Ted talk, which flippantly repeat these claims, make embarrassing errors of fact, etc. (4) He seems to trying to make a go of learning to become a real scientist and will likely be very ashamed of this earlier chapter in his life. (5) He has not actually done anything notable in science yet. There is the paper with Joglekar, for which Jacob's co-authorship seems to be gratuitous and there is a manuscript with Smolin, who appears to be a preceptor/advisor of his, but that's it. The problem we have then is as follows: all the sources (BBC or otherwise) are unreliable, to put it politely, and none of his real accomplishments are anywhere close to demonstrating notability. A very great deal of discussion arrived at the consensus of hosting the page, but having only the vanilla, absolutely verifiable, reliable information for Jacob. My own prediction is that, if you push to have some sanitized version of this article (which, to my eyes, appears to be where you are trying to push this), that it will lead to a 3rd AfD and likely deletion of the page on the basis that there is no reasonable article that is possible for Jacob. Such would be within guidelines and I think that the collective patience of the involved editors here (who all know a great deal about science and mathematics, BTW) is running out quickly. Agricola44 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have invited additional eyeballs to the talkpage, to peruse my own behavior

[edit]

My apologies for the template, per WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sigismund Goldwater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Sinai Hospital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 October 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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Eli Sternberg) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Eli Sternberg, Agricola44!

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

Looks great. I've changed the category from mathematician to engineer which I feel is more right based on his biography. Also found that there are articles on him already in German & Portuguese, so I've linked them. Hope that's OK.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Personal attacks

[edit]

I removed two comments from you in this dif.

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

If you continue to personalize the discussion at the AfD and to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion (please read that) I will be seeking administrative action. Everyone understands your position on the deletion question. You have made it very clear already. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please take whatever measures you deem necessary. BTW, I'm glad you unhatted the text at that AfD as Fences advised. It gave the distinct impression of having your thumb on the scale of the debate. Cheers. Agricola44 (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Ping

[edit]

This RfC may be of interest to you: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw(talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

[edit]

I am notifying everyone who took part in the AFD discussion on Daniel Romanovsky. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3 Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Bleitrach

[edit]

You are 100% right, both about the source and the false invocation of WP:badgering, but I think further antagonization won't help. A word like "prancing" is pretty loaded—it might be wise to consider changing it. I'm not judging–I've certainly carried my share of arguments past the point of productiveness. —swpbT 20:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Agricola44. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JB AfD

[edit]

The discussion, as SB noted, seems to be generating new inputs. Are you sure you want to keep your position as "Procedural Close"? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on AfD

[edit]

Your argument reads merely a list of one-line responses. None of your statements address that the article is obviously in violation of BLP as it stands and must be remedied by some means. Deletion is the most obvious remedy. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Agricola44. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert C. Seacord for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert C. Seacord 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/Robert_C._Seacord 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. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

[edit]
I am sorry if my ad hominems at WP:AfD/Jacqueline Maria Dias caused offence, it was not my intention to do so, I was just truthfully stating my personal feelings. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

[edit]

Information icon Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Clyde's Vegetable Garden Planner but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh666 03:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Valentinelli

[edit]

I would ask you to take another look and consider changing your !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Valentinelli, based on the substantial additional sources and new content to the article since the version you looked at. Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken

[edit]

I liked what you wrote about academic notability here. It can be hard to explain to people new to this community and your argument neatly put it in a nutshell. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Agricola44. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Agricola44. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

[edit]

Hi as per WP:NEXIST please don't vote delete solely on the references already in the article without checking to find more, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Source of Information for V. Ralph Pruitt

[edit]

Hello, I was wondering how you had gotten some of the information for my grandfather, and why you created the wikipedia page for him? I find it awesome, honestly, and would love to connect if you have more information about him. I have a lot to add, if I decide to add more of his personal life in the article. I just figured I'd reach out and see what all else you have about his work and accomplishments/where you had gotten your information. Cheers, DCEP99 (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Agricola44&oldid=1185953151"