User talk:Nagle/Archives/2017/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"External inputs" redirect to "Christopher A. Sinclair"
"External inputs" redirects to "Christopher A. Sinclair" per your edit, why? X1\ (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Probably because, back in 2006 when I did that, the article was somehow misnamed, and moving it to the correct name left a useless redirect behind. Requested a technical deletion at [1]. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
John – In case you haven't seen this, bringing it to your attention. It is new and could use expansion, organization, and elaboration. E.g., I added a mention of "happy talk" with some of your comments in mind. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Have you seen my Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems? John Nagle (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well look – there's a whole section on happy talk. Either I didn't see this, or had forgotten. Megalibrarygirl, an about-to-be-confirmed admin, may be interested in this as well. I may try to make a navbox to tie together some of these essays – yours, mine, and now DGGs. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- My general position on PR is to first check for notability, then apply WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc. strictly. Delete if the tests for notability are not passed. If the article subject unquestionably passes the bar for notability, then there should be an article, but probably one quite different from the PR version. Then it's an article repair problem. Trimming a PR article down to the bare facts is a good first step. Do a news search to see if something important was left out. Searching for the article subject along with "lawsuit", "conviction", "recall", "bankruptcy", "losses", "litigation", etc. is helpful. Recognizing PR or identifying paid editors isn't as crucial with this approach. John Nagle (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just offhand, what fraction of the new corp articles do you think have one or more of these problems?
- Also, feel free to use apply User:Bri/Conflict of interest essays as a template if you like, I won't presume to put it on your userspace essay. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- No idea. Ask people who do new pages review. New corp articles that make it to WP:COIN often have those problems, but they've already been noted as have a COI problem. John Nagle (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- My general position on PR is to first check for notability, then apply WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc. strictly. Delete if the tests for notability are not passed. If the article subject unquestionably passes the bar for notability, then there should be an article, but probably one quite different from the PR version. Then it's an article repair problem. Trimming a PR article down to the bare facts is a good first step. Do a news search to see if something important was left out. Searching for the article subject along with "lawsuit", "conviction", "recall", "bankruptcy", "losses", "litigation", etc. is helpful. Recognizing PR or identifying paid editors isn't as crucial with this approach. John Nagle (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well look – there's a whole section on happy talk. Either I didn't see this, or had forgotten. Megalibrarygirl, an about-to-be-confirmed admin, may be interested in this as well. I may try to make a navbox to tie together some of these essays – yours, mine, and now DGGs. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)