User talk:Aisupova

Welcome!

Hello, Aisupova, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Help desk#A new article

Just add (or blank and add) {{db-g7}} to the page. Dru of Id (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sandbox

I have deleted your sandbox. You were supposed to add {{db-userreq}} as rendered here (14 characters in total) and not the code from the source of the page. It's a coincidence I saw your edit and deleted the page. The right code automatically alerts administrators that you want the page deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User page issue

I need your help once again. I just noticed that my user page does not exist. How important is this? Can it prevent me from creating Wikipedia articles? Thank you!

It makes no difference at all. It's a place for you to tell everyone what you're interested in and what you like to edit and such. If you don't want to create the page, you don't have to. Some people have been here for quite some time without ever creating their user page. Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:User pages. You can create it by clicking the red link and save anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, guys!

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack A. Guttenberg.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your article

Hello! Reading further, there is lots of content that really does sing his praises and should be chopped out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Got it Anna! Working on it right now!

I agree that the article lays it on a bit thick particularly considering that most or all of the plaudits are from the school's own materials, or inferred - it would be much more comforting, for example, to see articles from independent sources that describe his great successes during his tenure at the law school. While the language itself is generally restrained the article does seem a bit - I don't know, inflated, very close to the sort of thing one would put into a CV. JohnInDC (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I hear you, but a publication made by the University does not mean that the source is not independent. Those are reports and news made by the school rather than by the dean about himself. Moreover, there are some valuable independent sources that I used as a foundation for the article. For instance, Columbus C.E.O. Magazine is an independent entity that published an article specifically about the accomplishments of the former dean. Similarly, Business First has published multiple articles about the dean. In order to build a solid Wikipedia article, I had to integrate a variety of sources, most of which, of course, would come from the school.Aisupova (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mm, it's hard to see how a law school publication writing about the accomplishments of its own dean is anything but a related source. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources for more. I looked at several of the law school's articles, and they didn't seem to be compiling material from third parties but rather reporting the information originally. As for the independent sources, I count seven out of thirty-one numbered references. Two of those were merely links to books, one was a two-sentence announcement, and two do not appear to be on line and can't be (easily) retrieved. It's thin, and it would improve the article (and bolster the claim for his notability) if you were able to find more truly independent sources. JohnInDC (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack Guttenberg image

Asiupova -

In trying to track down third party sources for the article, I came across this page, which features the same photo as the one you uploaded for use in the article. Wikipedia can't accept images from third party sources without clearing copyright issues - do you have a different image you can use? Or, do you have permission to use the photo from the rights holder? That's not clear from the Commons page. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

John, I asked the permission of the Capital University Law School. They told me that as soon as this picture was posted on the web site, it became available and, therefore, could be used by the general public. Please, let me know if that's all right. If not, I will try to to find another image.

Also, John, there is a message on the page that says "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources." I'm working on it, but I don't know if I would get any luck at that. Fo instance, I'm trying to find a URL for the CEO Magazine, so that the magazine's article about the dean could be viewed by others. I'm actually going to call the editors today. Does this message threaten the existence of the article? Could it be deleted if left in a state it is in?Aisupova (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If Capital Law School is okay with distribution of the image then the task is to get that properly reflected where the image is uploaded. They hold the copyright and until they expressly allow a photo's use on terms that work for Wikipedia, it's assumed to be an infringement. Sadly I'm not very conversant in these issues - maybe you can find someone on Commons to help. The tag on the page does not threaten the article. It just means that, as references go, it's really not quite up to snuff and editors should endeavor to find better ones. Links to the Dispatch articles would help, but they're behind a paywall if I remember, and you may not be successful. The larger point is that, for all that he may have done for the law school, Guttenberg hasn't gotten much independent coverage for it. The tag may wind up remaining for a while, as we wait for 3d party coverage to catch up. The only way this article would be deleted would be if Guttenberg turned out not to be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense and my sense of it at this point is that he probably meets one or another of those tests. JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say "meets one or another of those tests", do you mean "notability" tests? My own sense is that someone who produced an authoritative source on professional conduct for Ohio is "notable." Will "notability" depend on the presence of truly independent sources? John, again, I don't know if I would be lucky enough to get any of those additional sources, that's why I am concenred.Aisupova (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the book may be notable. See WP:Notability (books). Whether that alone makes its author notable is I think an open question. I've nosed around a bit and it's not altogether clear what criteria actually apply here. There is of course Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the general criteria. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) is close but seems not quite right. Nevertheless I think that his deanship, and his authorship of the book together (not sure either of those are actually words -) are sufficient. There's still the issue that, outside of the Capital Law School environment, he hasn't received much coverage. The Law School reports on his accomplishments - of course - but... who else? I wouldn't worry too much about it though. The article isn't going to just up and go away even if someone does contest notability. There'd be a debate about it (which you'd hear about), and more people would try to find sources, and in the end it'd probably sort out just fine. The best thing for the article at this point is, in my opinion, to bring it into line a bit more closely with the sourcing, not so much in terms of what's verifiable but rather in terms of depth of coverage. My impression is that he was a successful dean of the law school and made a great number of measurable improvements; and has also authored an important professional treatise in Ohio. Those points can be made fairly succinctly, and the better the job the article does of getting straight to those essential points, the less likely any issues are to arise. JohnInDC (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just restored the name of the image above - I can't imagine any "privacy" issue that might attach to its being stated here (the discussion is after all directly related to, and reveals no more than, a very public Wikipedia page and a very public image); plus removing it makes it rather harder for any other editor who happens by to figure out what it is we are talking about. What precisely are you concerned about in removing it? If I understand your concern I might be able to offer a better solution. JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

John, there is no good reason for changing the image name, I just did not want any of my conversations online to become the dean's permanent record. That's all. But that's OK, I suppose. Thank you very much for your input into the article. I've just noticed that someone clarified the citation - it must have been you - thank you! I got the form for the school to sign to release the image, and they should respond soon. I called them today again to get a verbal permission, but also requested a written one. I also made some additional research in a public library, and found some additional sources that I have already added to the article. Some time is probably needed too. Thanks again.Aisupova (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)