This 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.
I have the information about Lubomír Hargaš, Czech track cyclist and three times vice world champion in tandem race, that he died on August 20th 1997, while training on the road. He had a crash with a bus. Unfortunately there is no source at all in the net, but I got the information from the Czech cycling association. I will try find an old cycling magazine with the information. --Nicola54 (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be be a big help to add a referenced name...so mauch of the information seems to get slightly lost with time. I still can't find anything on Georg Pawlack(1933), Hans Bachmann(1913), Hans Lange(1913) or Max Hansen(1913)...(looks like 1913 was a bad year for cyclists). Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The references are all in the German list. --Nicola54 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Taking a break
Hi, good to hear from you. I am, too. My "agenda" is trying to have the academic consensus represented, so shoot me. New Year's resolution - concentrate on more positive work. Parkwells (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)|}
By the way, they only recently seem to have read your succinct Lede statement and have decided it is "biased".Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well...I'm abandoning the article and its talkpage to others' tender mercies, they can have at it. There's so much energy being spent on this *one* issue...I looked around and realized that there is so much at WP that really needs to be done. I'm trying to help out and do more AfC Reviews. Just call me biased with an agenda...Wooo-hooo!Shearonink (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm resolving to be strong...even with all the plans being laid on that Talk right now. Shearonink (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You made me smile - I know; it's so hard to resist checking in. But went on to work Solomon Northup and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 - learned some things and made real contributions, too. That felt good for a change.Parkwells (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh....I see that you cracked under the pressure (lol). Myself?...I'm refusing to engage, it's a non-violent protest of a sort. I've been trying to help out at AfC and in -en-help instead. Shearonink (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's just I keep thinking something will penetrate - a Smithsonian exhibit might indicate the state of the field? Will get away again.Parkwells (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have added some more inline references (at least I think I did what you were referring to ;). I also removed the External Links section. Didn't think it read like an advertisement, I used other similar products as a reference (such as Shorewall, PfSense, and M0n0wall and only mentioned verifiable information. Please let me know if you still think it does and what specifically. Thanks! --DanGynn (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There are two major issues with the submission at present.
First is that I see no clear claim of notability. Has this system won awards? Have there been profiles of it in WIRED or the Wall Street Journal or has it been profiled on a TV business news network like Fox Business or MSNBC? Has it been endorsed by a major player like Microsoft or Dell? Does it have a majority market-share among similar products?
The second is that the submission needs independent reliable sources. The majority of the sources for this draft are from the company itself, it needs more references like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, more articles/columns/stories that are about the company or product and how notable it is. In general, newspapers/magazines/transcripts of TV&radio interviews (or news shows) on media websites=good. Social networking sites/press releases/anonymous blogs= not so good. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ideally it is a compendium of published information gathered from reliable independent sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and editorial oversight.
Also, I have not taken a look at your examples above but the problem with using the rationale of "these other articles exist" is that editors really need to look at "good articles do exist, what can I do to make my article better?". For instance, Wikipedia has over 3.8 million articles, some of them really aren't as good as they should be, so what we all need to do is look at the Wikipedia Good Articles for our examples. For PacketViper, the best articles to work off of would probably be the Wikipedia Good Articles about Software. Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Shearonink. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Vivid Racing
Good call, declining Vivid Racing at articles for creation. "Betty Merm" is an employee of the company responsible for marketing - which probably explains the tone of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
thanks for the 'move' to the article space? can you give me more suggestions to make my article better? NGO08-EC3371 (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, you are mistaken. I did not accept this AfC, I declined it. I simply moved it from your userspace into Articles for Creation space, which is where it belongs for now. Please look at the Comments I left. Thank you.Shearonink (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm pretty sure that the only sources you may object about their reliability are no more than 3: i.e. the references numbered
5, 7 and 12. Instead the main problem of the article is actually its notability. So, to be sure, I would like to ask a simple question you may answer with yes or no:
Do you have considered the notability issues I've reported in User_talk:PCMorphy72/Syd_Barrett_genealogy?
(there you may also understand why you shouldn't have to consider the Ancestry.com source, numbered 4, as "user-edited").
PCMorphy72 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ancestry.Com is an user-edited site & their Licensing agreement says that the information cannot be republished.
Late Night Syd Barrett Discussion Room is a discussion board, therefore it is also an user-edited site.
Find A Grave(discussed at the above site) is also an user-edited site.
MyHeritage.Com is also an user-edited site.
Flack Genaology is copyrighted...do you have written permission, sent to OTRS, to use information from that website?
Ref#1 only links to a book listing.
The descendants are not direct descendants, they are either stated to be collateral descendants or siblings. As such, they would not seem to have a measure of notability on their own and are not public figures, so to assert claims of notability and that this subject should be the object of a Wikipedia article, of an article in any encyclopedia, at the present time seems tenuous at best.
The neutrality issues brought up in other Reviews {"but the interviews was annoying for him") have not been addressed.
The notability of this particular subject as brought up in multiple Reviews has not been sufficiently addressed. Seemingly idle curiosity about the relatives of a public figure is not enough for a Wikipedia article. It might be enough for a discussion on a forum, it might be enough for a musician's fans to post about on some fan site, but in my opinion this draft has not explained why this particular subject should be in Wikipedia.
I declined this submission. In its present state I would decline it again. If you think that this submission will be accepted then submit it again, I will not review it a second time. Shearonink (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply at User_talk:PCMorphy72/Syd_Barrett_genealogy. I still stand by my above comments. If you think this draft will be accepted then feel free to submit it again, perhaps other Reviewers will think differently than I do. Shearonink (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. My reason for reverting the decline was the user is not a registered user so how seriously am I meant to take their opinion? I am happy to address the issues raised usually, but this one was unusual. If you are able could you take a quick look and let me know if you think their decision was okay. NealeFamily (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by stating that they're not a registered user? They might not have a "user page" but they are auto-confirmed since their account if over 4 days old (since January 8, 2012) and they also have at least 74 edits. Also, you might not realize this but recently Category:Pending AfC submissions has had anywhere from 200 Pending drafts up to over 600 Pending drafts at a single time. The backlog can be enormous, so almost any assistance from folks, even editors who might make mistakes (like me!) or editors who might need to learn more about Reviewing AfCs (like perhaps Princepesa01) is a good thing. I will take a look at your draft later today when I have the time. Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Shearonink, I feel much happier about that now you've explained, don't bother checking - I'll treat it as genuine and see what needs doing NealeFamily (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help and advice - I appreciated it NealeFamily (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
DC Wikipedia meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW).
Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Wikipedia, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. (RSVP + details)
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude
You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!
Who should come? You should. Really.
She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!
As you requested in IRC, I have created a table mockup. I also added an example table entry in case you wanted to see what I did. You are welcome to edit the sandbox page. Best, Alpha_Quadrant(talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Being Gentler to Newbies
Hello,
I am the Wikipedia Regional Ambassador for New EnglandI've noticed that you have been involved in administration of some of the pages that students from that domain have been creating and editing. I would like to politely ask that perhaps some gentler and more welcoming tact could be used, even if you must take action on their articles for policy non-compliance. The Professors and other Campus Ambassadors certainly do their best to explain all policies beforehand, but not every student - like most new editors - get's it right the first time. The Education Program has been very successful in creating lasting editors, between 5-10% of students go on to be willing editors in their own right after they finish the program, which is significantly higher than the editor/readership ratio. Please then help us to further our joint mission of increasing editorship by trying not not biting the newbies, but perhaps guiding them. Maximilianklein (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Shearonink. You have new messages at Username's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A Helping Hand Barnstar
The Helping Hand Barnstar
For helping someone on IRC for a good length of time. Pine(talk) 06:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all of the work you do helping new editors, both in IRC and on Wikipedia. Best, Alpha_Quadrant(talk) 22:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, I am an avid AfC reviewer too. While your decline rationale for the submission is OK, I felt source would have been better "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable, independent sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified, and reliable independent sources are needed to establish the notability of the subject. If you need help citing sources, please see Referencing for beginners." Best, Bmusician 06:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the edit history you edited the Request template and when you did so the template then indicated you were the creator of the draft, so it actually doesn't appear to be a bug in the script. Shearonink (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It was per a request at WP:AFCHD and the creator had trouble "submitting the article". Bmusician 08:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I was interested in seeing what had happened to trigger that notice to the wrong editor, so I looked at that request at AFCHD and do understand the article-creator was having issues getting the draft submitted. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear that the system has a bug, that is all (and I see you've now found that "u" parameter and corrected it to User:Mokeller.) I've left some links for this editor as I often do after a Review. I've said to other AfC folks in IRC that it would probably make Reviewers' task much easier if the AFC Review template had multiple options for Decline instead of the single option it now has. That way we could notify these creators that it isn't just one aspect that is wrong with their draft, but multiple aspects that need fixing before re-submission. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Shearonink, I haven't been around irc much lately but I'm sure you're cranking away. :)
I just finished a massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful assessment in checking it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Hey, just wanna say thanks for helping me out with my signature, I've sorted it now :) Yellowman94Talk • I am the yellow man. That's what they call me, cos that's what I am. 01:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
History of Texas City, Texas
Thanks for your response to my AfC submittal of the above title. Late in February, I had started to add more information to the then-existing History section of Texas City, Texas. However, one thing led to another, causing the section to grow much larger. I decided that probably the section should be condensed by striping out many details, and that a separate History page is warranted. That's why I submitted the new article. Concurrently, I have created a new history section on my sandbox, which I propose to incorporate on the main Texas City page. Please review the AfC in that light, and let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your help. Bruin2 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
If you switched out the the present content with your sandbox content and then incorporated that History section into a "History of Texas City, Texas" article, that might work. Before you do such a major restructuring, though, you should post on Talk:Texas City, Texas and ask for input. If no one responds then be bold and institute your changes (one of the reasons I turned down "HIstory of Texas City, Texas is that it duplicated in structure and content the History section of the main article). Shearonink (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
PAGEANT DOCUMENTARY
Hi--I am very grateful for any help. I have gone berserk with the Wiki "help referencing for beginners pages". They are not helpful to me. I'm perhaps unusual. I've been going CRAZY trying to make them even appear on a page. I know how to do this without all the wiki language but with it, I'm going insane.
The film itself fits ALL the wiki criteria-was reviewed by major newspapers (Village Voice) and won 10 film festival awards and has been heralded as a unique film about a totally different side of life, and a pageant that isn't usually covered.
I'm doing my best but all I seem to get from reviewers is that I'm not doing it right but no one really tells me what is wrong. The references are all accurate. They seem to be in the style that Wiki wants. I didn't add any quotes from the articles so as to make things more encyclopedic.
Please tell me what I can do to make this work. It is a terrific film and very significant! Thanks so much
Bonchic (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)BonchicBonchic (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help with my submission "Solvency Modernization Initiative". I have added independent sources in my references as per your advice. Can you please take a look and see if it's ok now. Most of the independent references on this subject tend to be professional and financial/industry publications (you said that should be fine as it establishes notability. This is indded a huge issue in the US and internationally). News agencies like Reuters also reported on that (found it through Factiva) but on their subscription services for financial pros and others willing to pay.
Thanks again for your help
CIPR DK — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIPR DK (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for advising me on the additional permissions that are needed for the Patrick E. McGovern article, and I hope that you are able to provide me with access to it again for editing.
The permissions should be arriving shortly: what email address should be used for you, so that you alerted to them?
Drwilliampepper (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)User:Drwilliampepper
Hi Shearonink
My name is Tony Savo, I'm the subject of a wiki page being considered for deletion. [Tony Savo]
First of all I want to thank you for your diligence in researching the matter. You seem to be the only one approaching the matter from an unbiased perspective. The reason why my page is being challenged, in short, is due to a personal attack from an ex CFM band member.
I have several credible references (non-blogs) to prove 1. I do in fact exist 2. I am the CEO/Producer of CFM and 3. I have made several contributions to the sport of Mixed Martial Arts and pop music in general.
It is common knowledge that I am the founding member of CFM also the CEO/Producer and can be easily verified with a basic google search.
The reason for contacting you is obviously its upsetting to see people who are uninformed, trying to discredit my life's work and passion. I have multiple links to prove my accomplishments and would be glad to post myself but I think it could be deemed a conflict of interest or violation of terms at the very least.
In the interest of truth and fairness, I think I have provided sufficient proof of myself and my accomplishments and would greatly appreciate your help/attention in this matter.
Please let me know if I can do anything else to help establish that my page is accurate.
Thanks for all your time and energy!
All my best,
Tony Savo (CEO/Producer)
Coalition Fight Music
www.coalitionfightmusic.com
Antoniusmaximussavo (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that contributing to the discussion will be seen as a conflict of interest. If there are any in-depth articles or columns from ESPN/Sport Illustrated/Billboard/Daily Variety/major (non-MMA in focus) media outlets aboutyou, that would be the best way for broad notability as a sports/music person to be established for the subject. Almost all of the coverage is from MMA-focused outlets and some of the coverage you mention above is a listing of names, and does not speak to the notability of the subject. I do think it is entirely possible that the article might be deleted by consensus (as you can see the majority of the various posts at present are not for "Keep") but am hopeful that the content will still be preserved as part of the Coalition Fight Music article. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
response
Thank you for your timely response.
Would a link to an article in a major national newspaper quoting me as CFM's CEO/Producer suffice?
Also, I have links to coverage by USA Today's UFC Media Group and can provide scanned copies of articles written about me/CFM in print magazines.
Please advise, thank you again for your time and energy in this matter.
Tony savo Antoniusmaximussavo (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your politeness, but no need to put in headers for every time you post.
Mentions of your position in media outlets won't really establish notability in and of itself, you need to refer to the appropriate guidelines for Notability (sportspersons) and Notability (musicians). In-depth coverage in reliable sources are what establish notability. If the USAToday coverage is a column all about "Tony Savo", then it would help establish notability. If it is, however, a mention of something only along the lines of "Tony Savo is the CEO of CFM", then that is only a statement of fact and would not necessarily be an indication of notability. I do not disbelieve that you are the CEO/etc. of CFM, but the important thing here, it seems to me, is to establish what being the CEO of CFM as well as being a member of CFM, etc. means in terms of influence/music/sports/broadcasting/etc. The sources don't have to all be from American sources, if there are articles from media outlets form other countries that would help establish notability as well. Shearonink (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I assume you are aware of the latest posts from AwayEnter (talkcontribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Savo. If you have any additional published proof from reliable sources that will refute their claims, I suggest that you stick to verifiable information from additional reliable sources and you could then do any or all of the following with an "I realize you guys know policy better than me, but here's some information to consider" attitude:
Post the information with links with no additional commentary at the Articles for deletion page, simply stick to the information. Do not simply repeat the citations that already appear within the article, this editor has found sources that refute those claims, including the CFM trademark filing (which does not mention you or other CFM members by name) by Ian Whittaker Ho and the appearance of multiple final track lists for "Supremacy MMA" (that do not include CFM).
Thank you for reviewing my article about Albert Nelson. I believe his information has its place in this encyclopedia because of his notable involvement in the civil rights movement, in a tangible, historic way. Please see:
http://fairhousingsummit.info/about-albert-t-nelson
I am sorry I don't know how to add in-line citations although I have read the instructions - I still don't get it.
I have provided all of the ON LINE info there is about Albert Nelson. However, I can provide reams of written material that is not on the internet as well as a great deal of oral history to verify that Mr. Nelson is deserving of a Wikipedia page. Thank you for your valuable time and help.
Sincerely,
David M. Gillespie
Supreme Court Certified Mediator
Orlando. Florida
Signing with your credentials is not necessary, just use the four tildes next time.
I would like to remind you that Wikipedia has over 3.9 million articles, sometimes not-great articles slip through. Citing WP:Other stuff exists does not automatically validate content created in another article. A better question to ask would be "Why doesn't my draft resemble a Wikipedia Good Article about a politician/local figure, such as the articles about Byron Brown, Margaret Chin or John P. Daley?"
It is not necessary to have sources online, you just need to cite them in a style accepted for Wikipedia articles, many statements in your draft have no specific citations. For instance,
"He established Human Relation commissions within 23 City and County governments (from Charlotte, North Carolina to Gatlinburg, Tennessee) and worked with school boards in helping to alleviate potential racial conflicts resulting from integration." and "In the national community, he was Past President of International Association of Officials of Human Rights Agencies (IAOHRA) from 1981-1983."
Where is the specific proof from an independent reliable source for those statements? Inline citations are an easy way to use the wiki-code to construct inline citations, take another look at the video tutorial on your talk page for help with this. As the previous Review stated, referencing for beginners is also a good place to go to for general help with referencing and in constructing inline-citations. The Wikipedia Tutorial also answers many of the questions new editors like yourself usually have. Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Shearonink. You have new messages at 20thtryer's talk page. Message added 15:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi you recently declined the submission of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jet-Set (magazine) citing that the article is not adequately supported by reliable, independent sources, however I fail to agree with you here, one of the sources is from El Tiempo Colombia's leading newspaper, the other one if from a publishing media industry called Publicitas, which even though it does not have a wikipedia article, is an internationally recognized company in its industry. So please explain why was not this sufficient to you, both those sources are reliable and independent; I just want to know so I can fix whatever it is that you find wrong. mijotoba (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
There are only two references, the Publicitas one is basically a business directory listing. You need more multiple independent reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Article Help!
Hello! I have fixed up and changed my article and was wondering if you think it is any better and if it is ready to be resubmitted. Thanks! :)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit war
Shearonink, I would be glad for moderation. If you have any suggestions please, please make them known. I have tried to use the page's talk section, users from the institution continue to remove relevant facts from the institution's page. First it was academic accreditation (now resolved), and now it is the historic position of the institution as both pre-millenial and dispensational (the school accepts both but not other eschatological viewpoints) Hungus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
Hello Shearonink,
I did put a page up for consideration for the Artist Dorothy Duval as there is no reference to here on this site, shame as she is quite well known and was for a time in my youth my next door neighbour.She was exhibited at the Stco Exchange, Royal Society of Marine Artists show on three occasions and in WhosWho in Art 1977 edition where it tells of all her awards. Most of which I quoted in my text. What do I have to do to get a page in Wikipedia about Duval ? 1917-2005. I think you should have something on her as she was well considered in UK and France.
Please advise. Thanks from Barriebrdc. [Wikipidia does write about me under motor sport as I was a professional racing driver in the 1960'sand 70's]
Barrie Smith BRDC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.252.51 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Your draft did not specifically reference particular statements about Duval. She received a silver medal, had a Diploma, exhibited in various venues?...who said so? You have to prove that she did what you claim she did by citing specific independent published reliable sources. One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is verifiability, readers have to be able to verify whatever claims and assertions are made about a subject. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia Good Articles/Art & Architecture and use some of them as examples, like Joanne Gair and Barbara Howard (artist). If you haven't already, please go through the Wikipedia Tutorial, it's an easy step-by-step introduction to editing on Wikipedia. Then after you've read through the Tutorial, your first article can walk you through the process of writing an article. Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
declining an AFC submissions
What is wrong with the inline citations at this edit? The user had inline citations although they aren't reliable! (I have that person watchlisted) mabdul 06:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your question is, but the inline citations are malformed in their intent - Ref#2 is to a blog written by the subject of the article, Ref#1 is to PopArchives.com.au and I don't see any editorial team at that site, nothing about the people who compile the information or the writers, so, yes, their reliability is unclear to me even if the structure is sufficient. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to revert it and use your own Review, I don't mind. I do think this draft-article is basically unreferenced (from reliable sources anyway) and have also noticed that the parent article (about Artie Wayne) has no References, and only has External Links. Shearonink (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right: the references are bad (so decline as |v=), but they are inline. (and your decline reason is that they aren't; edit summary: (Declining submission: submission lacks inline citations)). mabdul 07:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In your post above you asked me "what was wrong" with the inline citations, I then told you. Trying to remember my thought processes about that particular Review?...I think I looked at the draft, saw that it had *some* references and that the footnote structure was being followed, saw that there were only *two* footnotes and used the Decline because there weren't enough footnotes/references to sustain an article so it does lack (enough) inline citations. The AfC Review Tool uses an automatic edit summary that does not completely line up with the automatic comment in this case, it also does not have a Preview option...a Reviewer cannot see the Review/Decline/Comments/edit summary until after the Submit button is hit, so sometimes the Reviewer's intent is unclear. I would not have considered it an unreasonable revert if you had already gone ahead, reverted my Review and changed the Decline reason to your satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for closing out the help request at User talk:BatesMotel6/Washington Institute for Graduate Studies. I didn't figure I should close it, since the user seemed to be hoping to find somebody to second-guess my article edits and my statements on the user's talk page. Thanks for acting as a third party in the situation. --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)
The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!
Noticing your recent note to User:Valfontis about problems with Steamboats of Coos Bay, I made some improvements to the article this morning. It should be possible now to track down specific page numbers for the unsourced claims. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner
Please join us for a Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner on Saturday, May 5. This will be a great opportunity to meet other Wikimedians from the DC area, discuss upcoming Wikimedia DC activities and events, and have fun over dinner and drinks. All ages are welcome! Kirill[talk] 04:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
follow up
Hi,
I have included the references following what you directed.
would you mind to see the article now please?My user name is
Drpraveenks--Drpraveenks 18:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpraveenks (talk • contribs)
Good article nominations
You asked for some of my current good article nominations. :) The ones I have are Burundi women's national football team, Rwanda women's national football team and Zanzibar women's national football team. (Plus I think four more.) I do not believe there really are many more sources for them available online and as they have played only one or two games (or none), there isn't much that can be said. Hence, article brevity of probably about six paragraphs each. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Sea slug of awesomeness
Thanks for trying anyway, with that guy. You're awesome. So have a sea slug! OohBunnies!Leave a message 14:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the subst:submit tip - it worked - and the page is in queue awaiting for approval.
Hopefully I've done enough this time and the page will get approved. I think this person is really worthy of a page on Wikipedia.
Thanks again for your help.
Really appreciated.
Nerissa
Update: ShearonLink - my page got approved and has been published. Thanks for the advice!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njm2012 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(Njm2012 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC))
Sorry.
I am very sorry for my actions and/or arguing with you :).--Deathlaser : Chat 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on my talk page - Facebook
Hi, and thank you very much for your generous help regarding the image issue. I will certainly benefit from your information; however, pardon me, but could you please confirm that a picture found on Facebook is also acceptable if I go through the procedure you described? Many thanks again! Dontreader (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If the paperwork is filled out, I think so. Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
That's excellent news, and quite a relief as well. Thanks so much! Dontreader (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Author of "Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/SpiderGraph chart" requests a Favor!
Shearonink 4/22/12 "A Plea for Help and a FAVOR" regarding: WP:Articles for Deletion/SpiderGraph chart
Dear Shearonink,
During January & February, you were friendly and very helpful while my article was in AfCreation!
I forget the date, but at some point, I wrote you about someone wanting to put notches on their belt or establishing a Kingdom?? I forget the exact way I phrased it??
Around Feb. 23rd, my article went public!
On Feb. 24th, Chap, the Ripper did a Major Overhaul & Removal of most of my article. It was almost unrecognizable, the first paragraph of 144 words was cut down to 66 words, I almost gave-in to his intimidation, but I didn't want it to reflect bad on me, so I rewrote the article for the 4th or 5th time, around 3/12.
No new tags were placed on the article for almost 2 months, but the old Tags from early Feb. remained on top of the article. I thought someone had just forgotten to remove them. I thought all the hurdles had passed!
On 3/27/12, I received a notice that my article had been Proposed for Deletion by Nominator Glrx, which I answered on 3/31/12, with a 6 page "Objection to Deletion" reply, because all the accusations sounded like he hadn't even read the article! Glrx, a PhD in Philosophy, hit me again on 4/3/12 with more of the same: WP:N, DUE, NOR, NPOV, & COI, and still I proved all of his assumptions incorrect in my 8 page 4/10/12 reply!
Also on 4/3/12, Gene93k Added a Note Stating that "this debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions."
So Far, everyone that has come forth, sounds like they never read the SG or Radar chart articles and maybe not the discussion either. I feel like I'm being Sandbagged for a Speedy Deletion by a tag team of kids! I try to spell everything out for them to clarify or correct their incorrect assumptions or accusations. Today, I spent all day writing a reply to Jorgath (a 26 yr old, non-technical, college student) & Livitup.
IF YOU HAVE THE TIME, please do me a favor and read over the deletion discussions and see what you think. They all seem in a big hurry to hang the article & me out to dry and I don't know why. I just want to get on with my life!
When you read my answers, you will see that this article is very Notable!! It looks to me like, no matter what I say or do, they intend to go ahead with the Deletion. As you read the discussions, I believe you'll see that there is definitely no COI.
Respectfully requested,
Greg Chester (GregLChest@aol.com)
Gregory L. Chester 07:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
Just because content of any type - articles, images, categories, etc - in Wikipedia has been published out into the public spaces doesn't mean it can't be continually re-assessed. And when that content is put up for deletion, any editor can weigh in with their opinion and vote to either Keep or to Delete. Because once content is written into any Wikipedia space (user-spaces even) and the author hits 'Save', the content doesn't belong to its creator any more, it belongs to the public. It doesn't matter who a person is outside Wikipedia, they can alter the content so long as they stay within Wikipedia's various guidelines. I'm sorry about the present situation you find yourself in, but no one around Wikipedia has any special powers to stop the process. Looking at the opinions now posted on the deletion page, if I were you I would download any of the various versions you wish as soon as possible so you have a personal copy or copies off-Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
@Greg: You are likely searching for that version. mabdul 00:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Shearonink,
Many thanks for expediting the posting of the article Patrick Edward McGovern. I suppose that it was assigned a Start-Class grading, because it is a notable biography entry and might need some better formatting?
I see where headings/subheadings were added. I will now go over the article very carefully to check for any other changes and improvements.
I assume that I can go in and make the editing changes without danger of having the article frozen and inaccessible again? Do you have any concrete suggestions on how to improve it, which will not risk "speedy deletion?"
Cheers, and a Mycenaean kylix and Peruvian keros raised high to you,
--Drwilliampepper (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket frees the article from being blanked for copyright violations, so the article will not be blanked for that reason. One issue is that much of the article seems to be about the Lab but not so much about the person, so if you can find additional references that are about the person and about his career, that would be good...you can add that information and those references. The other issue I kept on running into when I was doing research on Dr. McGovern, is that much of the available material repeats bits from his official bio. A published source that shows another aspect of his life/career would be interesting. If there were any improvements that were suggested prior to the content-blanking and you haven't implemented those yet, please do so...almost any article could do with being improved. Shearonink (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Templates
Hi, you placed a level 4 vandalism final warning with the addition of a note about 'long-term abuse' on an IP a few minutes ago. What template did you use? Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
In Twinkle, go to the "Single issue warnings" and find {{uw-longtem}}. Cheers!, Shearonink (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
A beer for you!
It's past midday here - enjoy & Thanks again. Denisarona (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
A beer for you Shearonink!
Have a beer! Or your choice of non-alcoholic beverage of course.
Really appreciate the help on my article, thanks a lot. CharmlessCoin (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Per my talk [1], "Wulfing later gave the plates to Washington University in St Louis, who loaned them to the Saint Louis Art Museum, where they were on display for many years." I assume they are still there, but am not positive. I plan to be several hrs from St Louis for awhile this summer, planning on trying to take a trip up and see if they are on display and if I can get photos. For now I just did a few illustrations. Hope this helps, Heiro 18:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, they are all over the literature but I can't figure out where the plates are right now. Heh, update their location (and if they are on public display) when you can....that would be cool. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Will do. I also recently created Etowah plates and am working on a larger parent article for the 2 Mississippian copper plates (See my sandbox version here User:Heironymous Rowe/Sandbox), but it was growing so large I decide to split off some of the material into these articles. Will probably get it live in the next month, have a few more things I need to write and research. Heiro 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
ETC Channel
Hello,
This is regarding the article: [[2]]. We have corrected required things and added reliable sources. Can you please review it.
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.
Talkback
Hello, Shearonink. You have new messages at Dodger67's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism
Dear Shearonick: Each of those BLPs follows the same organization as the above submission with one major exception. In each of those the man is a bigger than any of his many different famous cases. In contrast in the submission the issue swallows the man and makes him relevant only as the vehicle for showing how the legal system works in practice with regard to the subject of the submission. For this reason the organization of submission could be changed to focus the man as a BLP with the issue as the foil. But that was the way it was when the submission was called Bruce Clark (legal scholar). Then it was criticized for being a coatrack. So it was changed as to title and content to down-play Clark and up-play the infinitely more important constitutional question that has been his life's work. Some people defend imperialism with so deep an emotion it is as if their lives depended on it, and many of course do. Can you lend some support by understanding that both the man and the issue are notable and it shouldn't matter who gets focused upon. It begins to seem I am damned if I do and damned if I don't focus on the BLP vs. just using the man as the foil to reflect the issue. Can you help explain this so I can make some progress to publication? It is beginning to seem perversely bureaucratic and on imperialism's side in the result. Thanks,--Evarose3 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace.
I don't get it. The userspace articles become new at the time it becomes a mainspace? What does "as of the date" mean? It doesn't mean "new" by becoming either mainspace or created, is it? --George Ho (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, yes it does. The date of new articles being publishing into mainspace is their date of creation for "DYK?" purposes. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I moved the template back to the other date, so I hope all is cleared up. --George Ho (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure. "DYK?" can be tricky because when drafts are moved to mainspace that changes the title all along the timeline/history, I always have to look at the actual date the draft version was moved to main and renamed from the sandbox version to its proper title. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Your GA reviews
Shearonink, you have two Good Article Reviews that you started on April 22, 2012, and appear to have done nothing with them since. Are you planning to complete them soon, or should they go back into the review pool? They are:
I'll be monitoring for a reply. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: Bellflower
No issues, my friend. BTW, keep an eye on Jayne Mansfield, and extend a hand when necessary. The article has a come a long way. Thanks to you and quite a number of other editors. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. The editor had dropped off my radar, so I'm not sure what/who else might have popped up in the meantime. I was afraid these accounts might just be a drop in the bucket but I do hope it helps. If/when this happens again, I'll try and remember to emphasize the long-term activity. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
These edits popped up on my radar, the interest-area and editing-style remind me of this editor, wondered what your thoughts might be. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Close enough to be suspect, I think. I've tagged the IP's talk page for now. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Mansfield again
The fact that Cimber died after Mansfield did would show that she was not a widow. I very much dislike the current wording. Guess there's no way out of it since she managed to get married and divorced all three times. ★Dasani★ 02:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Cimber and Mansfield's divorce was pending when she died. She didn't get divorced three times. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The facts concerning her last days and who she was married to/divorced from are convoluted at best. It does appear that she and Cimber had separated and filed for divorce but were still technically married (witness the fight over who controlled Jayne's body/funeral proceedings) BUT the New Orleans courts ruled (after her death) that Mickey Hargitay was Jayne's legal husband (Faris, Jayne Mansfield: A Bio-Bibliography, Page 36) BUT that was overruled and a judge declared that Cimber was her legal husband(Strait, Here They Are Jayne Mansfield, Page 301) AND this Gettysburg Times account contemporary to her death states that "2 Estranged Husbands of Jayne Mansfield Staging Tug-of-War for Funeral"(http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19670630&id=OlcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3382,87939). For the time being, I think that the three men's names followed by year-dates of the supposed/alleged/stated marriages in parentheses preserves the timeline according to sources and is the best solution for now. 14:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Shearonink (talk)
Help with Deleted SpiderGraph chart article
Hello again Shearonink,
You were nice enough to help me before and now I need your help again to give me some direction. What does it mean to be the Deletion Nominator? If you look at Glrx's User talk page, you'll see that I thought Glrx was in charge of the discussion because he was the Nominator. So after the discussion was abruptly closed, I continued to direct comments to him. I later noticed that he was making incorrect accusations, but when I proved him wrong, he wasn't correcting the discussion or passing the truth back to the voting REs to correct their miss-impressions. Not having all the facts (held back by Glrx), they voted to delete. Along came Ryan (Rjd0060) and deleted the article per process, not knowing that Glrx had held back information. I directed a DRV (soon to be a Grievance?) to Glrx because he was the culprit and he directed me back to Rjd0060. How do I get the true facts known, expose Glrx for what he is, and get the article undeleted?
Thanx in advance for your help,
76.2.147.70 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot I wasn't logged in! Gregory L. Chester 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
The community consensus was for article deletion as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpiderGraph chart. Glrx is not in-charge of the process, the community is. I have no idea how facts could have been "held back" by Glrx since all posts on Wikipedia's pages can be read by anyone. If there was some matter that you forgot to post within the Deletion debate then that can be posted as part of a Deletion Review, which by the way you haven't actually filed. You have placed the template on the incorrect page, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review, Glrx's talk page is not the correct place to post your DR request. I would also suggest that you really should stop referring to other editors in pejorative terms, characterizing another editor as 'holding back the truth', as a 'culprit' and saying you are going to 'expose them' makes the process much more difficult than it has to be. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Shearonink,
I want you to know that I really do appreciated all your help, instructive advice, and especially my witnessing to your obvious Integrity, which I have found lacking in some of the other Editors & Administrators! (Glrx said, "I am unsympathetic to an appeal" and Rjd0060 said, "Sorry to disappoint you, but I really couldn't care less what happens to this particular article. You'll have to pursue this elsewhere.")
Do you remember my concerns to you last October, when Mabdul proved himself to be an Egotistial Bully, when I went to the Help Desk for the first time, and I hinted to you that someone may be trying to build a Power-play Kingdom on WP? (It's my belief, that when an unknown editor has life or death power over an article, one needs maturity to control one's ego or power can get out of hand!) Well, after that Help Desk incident, Mabdul put me on his Watch List. Since then, he has eliminated three sections of the SG article w/o explaining to me about the cause or giving suggestions to make it better! He also stated that he thought the SpiderGraph was a Radar chart, which I proved to him was wrong, but he still voted to delete it , along with adding 4 or 5 other comments during the Delete discussion. Then, I learned that Glrx became Delete Nominator of the article after talking to Mabdul, while he was asking Glrx for a RfA! (small world!)
Recently, I have taken your latest advice and removed the inappropriate DRV from Glrx's talk page and decided not to pursue a Greivance, just yet. Please let me try to summarize my situation (or you can read it first hand on Glrx's or Rjd0060's talk page). A new DRV would not work in this case, because the damage to the article that was done just after the article went public and before it was proposed for deletion, is still present in the article. An egotistical editor (CC) jumped on the article and cut it in half, rearranged everything beyond recognition (a real third-grade hack job!) and also piggybacked the 1986 Industry Handbook secondary source citation, onto the existing 1985 primary source citation, while removing every mention in the article of the very notable secondary source! Consequentally, a reviewing editor caused the article to be deleted!
By the time the other Reviewing Editors read the article, all they saw was an article with no secondary source, therefore not passing WP:N, automatically causing a delete consenses! The article had already been deleted when the omission error was discovered, consequently, it was to late to make changes! The error was mentioned 3 separate times in the discussion, but no one acknowledged the error, in fact, when I corrected some of their miss-impressions, no reviewing editor even replied back or questioned my comments, which I thought was very odd! Here, I had proven them wrong, but no one changed their vote??Most of them stated in there delete comments that the SpiderGraph was just another form of Radar chart, taking after Glrx's lead! In fact, Glrx was so adamant that he said, "The faults of the Radar spider chart carried over to the SpiderGraph chart!" I immediately asked Glrx to explain himself, but he never did! I told him that it was obvious that the geometry in the Excel software used to computer-generate the Radar charts caused its overall faults, whereas all the SpiderGraph charts are hand-drawn and requires no computer! Still there was no change to Glrx's attitude!
I have asked Rjd0060 if it would be possible to have the article undeleted into the AfCreation area, so I could make the necessary corrections and then have it Relisted with an "expert-subject tag," so comments from a more knowledgeable group of "peers" could be obtained? (So far, I haven't received an answer from Ryan.) Does that sound fessible to you? What do you suggest I do? At the present time, the public has no low-cost, easy-to-use, universal method to aid in their process of making important Trade-off Decisions!
Thanking you in advance, Gregory L. Chester 17:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
I am sorry that this experience with the SpiderGraph article has been so difficult for you, but take a look at this direct quote of what you posted above:
Do you remember my concerns to you last October, when Mabdul proved himself to be an Egotistial Bully, when I went to the Help Desk for the first time, and I hinted to you that someone may be trying to build a Power-play Kingdom on WP? (It's my belief, that when an unknown editor has life or death power over an article, one needs maturity to control one's ego or power can get out of hand!) Well, after that Help Desk incident, Mabdul put me on his Watch List. Since then, he has eliminated three sections of the SG article w/o explaining to me about the cause or giving suggestions to make it better! He also stated that he thought the SpiderGraph was a Radar chart, which I proved to him was wrong, but he still voted to delete it , along with adding 4 or 5 other comments during the Delete discussion. Then, I learned that Glrx became Delete Nominator of the article after talking to Mabdul, while he was asking Glrx for a RfA! (small world!)
Now, maybe another editor might not be your favorite person, maybe their style is not to your liking, but Mabdul is a conscientious editor. Characterizing him as being "an Egotistial[Egotistical] Bully" as well as implying that there is something wrong with an editor maintaining a Watchlist? plus calling "CC" an "egotistical bully" and saying his editing was a "third-grade hack-job"?...I'm sorry, I don't understand why you think calling your fellow editors names on my talkpage will get you somewhere. I also don't understand why you think that participating in a Articles for Deletion discussion is cause for alarm and why you think editing any Wikipedia article requires anyone's permission...once material is written onto Wikipedia, *any* other person can edit it, content does not belong to the person who created it, it belongs to the community at large.
In my opinion, from this article's earliest incarnations, the available references for the subject were always somewhat sparse and not completely sufficient to Wikipedia standards. As to your last sentence above?... "At the present time, the public has no low-cost, easy-to-use, universal method to aid in their process of making important Trade-off Decisions!"... this would seem to be incorrect. This Trade-off Decision-Making process of yours actually still exists, but the Wikipedia encyclopedia does not seem to be the best place for information about it to reside. I would suggest, with all the issues that your fellow editors have had with it that you find some other venue to publicize this decision-making method. As to restoring the previous draft content to your user space so you can perhaps improve it to Wikipedia standards, I am not an administrator and cannot take such an action. I tried to find a WikiProject that you could get involved with on other articles or that could assist you with trying to work up the SpiderGraph content into an article, WikiProject Statistics might possibly be of some assistance. There are some administrators who participate in that WikiProject, perhaps one of them might be interested in restoring the deleted content to your user space. The participants are listed here. Good luck, Shearonink (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink,
Thanx very much for your previous support! I guess you would have understood more, had you read Glrx's talk page. The last 9 months have been so stressful, I've even started taking sleeping pills to get passed the turning, tossing, & mental dictating, while trying to get to sleep! At 72, it's just not worth my health to pursue! But believe me when I say, that it was definitely not COI, I just hate to give-in to a disrespectful, power-hungry kid(s)! I wish we could have met under better circumstances! Good bye and good luck combating the conspiracy! Gregory L. Chester 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
Request for Peer Review
Hello,
I noticed that in the past you made good contributions to the Henry Clay article, and I was wondering if you would be willing to look at a similar article about Thomas S. Hinde. Hinde was a close friend and neighbor of Henry Clay in Virginia and Kentucky. I have put in a lot of time upgrading the article over the past few months. If you are not interested or busy I completely understand. Thank you in advance for your time and have a nice day.
Happy to take a pic of the area of interest for you. Just let me know what area you want. The map posted is a high Fstop photo so most everything will be in focus, even at higher resolutions. Enjoy. --Ian Furst (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Shearonink. You have new messages at WP:RX. Message added 19:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
edits to George Washington
I've provided reliable sources for edits to George Washington on its Talk Page. Thanks. Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that you've registered, congratulations! Since you're auto-confirmed (and not an unregistered IP-editor anymore), you don't have to go through a middle-man (like me) to get those edits done, you can do them. Did you have some other questions before proceeding? You could always first comment on your Edit Requests at Talk:George Washington, saying you're now registered/autoconfirmed, asking for feedback from other editors (about the possible edits) and then work with any respondents to implement the edits yourself. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Re: mutual friend
I went ahead and blocked the IP for 3 months. Note that the new activity occurred only 4 days after the last block (1 month) expired. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, that's kind of what I thought... quacks, ducks, etc. Shearonink (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks so much for the award. I've never seen that one before. Cheers, 72Dino (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's one I created just for the occasion. Enjoy, Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Very cool, then. 72Dino (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with "La Familia..."
May I contact you for help on a regular basis? I am a fair editor but a seat-of-the-pants technician and have trouble wading through the manuals and lists. Cheers! Shir-Eltoo 16:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh, sure. There were also a few other people who helped trim that article up... Soap and Gabriel F. You can post on my talkpage if you like, but sometimes using a "Helpme" request is faster - that notifies helpers/editors who are hanging out in the helpers channel on IRC, that's how I initally came upon your request. You could also sign on to IRC and ask for help in the #wikipedia-en-help channel. You probably already know this, but the Wikipedia Editing Help Channel is staffed by volunteers....so don't get discouraged if it take a while for someone to respond. Shearonink (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I want to personally thank you for your assistance with my trying to submit a wikipedia page of myself.
I was, and continue to have difficulty trying to prove my notability.
If possible, I would appreciate it if we could communicate via phone, Skype, or however possible to help make this attempt a little more personal.
Thanks again.
Ed Anhalt
Dean of Education
International University fr Graduate Studies
www.iugrad.edu.kn
[removed contact info -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.169.2 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, all communications about WP articles should really take place on the article's talk page or in the #wikipedia-en-help channel. And you really should not post personal information on Wikipedia, such as phone #s or email addresses. Also, if you have a Wikipedia user account, you are not presently signed-in and your IP-address has been revealed. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I just reposted a revised article, and was wondering if it meets requirements of a Wikipedia submission.
Thanks again for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ed Anhalt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.169.2 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no it does not. Doing some homework will help you understand why.
Click on this link-->> Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and read it. Since you assert that you are the subject, you obviously have a conflict of interest in creating an article about yourself with a Neutral point of view. It is possible to write an article about some subject that you have a close association with but it is almost impossible to write an article about yourself and remain dispassionate. That being said, if you think you can write an article to Wikipedia standards about your asserted self then feel free to keep going through this numbered homework list.
Click on this link-->> Wikipedia Good Articles about Educators and look at some of the Wikipedia Good Articles about Educators. Look at how they are constructed, open up an editing window (don't edit them!) just to see how the Wikipedia coding achieves formatting according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, look at the types of references they use.
Click on these links-->> Basic notability for people, Basic notability for any biography and Notability for academics and read up about the Wikipedia concept of Notability for biographies. Does the subject fulfill these parameters? If you were a stranger and you happened to read your sandbox draft would you think this person is as notable as other biographies in WIkipedia?
When you've done all that homework, then come back here and you'll have taught yourself why your present sandbox draft does not meet Wikipedia requirements, you might even have fixed up some of its issues along the way. Good luck, Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The transfer of Tim Cahill from Everton to New York Red Bulls is not complete yet. The two clubs have agreed a fee, Cahill has even agreed "outline personal terms" (according to the BBC), but he has not undergone a medical in New York or even signed a contract yet. Don't change his article again. Thanks. – PeeJay 15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The change was sourced from a reliable source and done in good faith. "Everton has agreed to sell Cahill to Red Bulls" seems pretty clear-cut to me. I apologize since I've seemed to have done something to set you off. And I don't care who you are, your comment above was rude. Last I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia anyone can edit, even well-meaning editors like me who wander into what is apparently a huge WP:BLP edit-war and who try to set things right according to the sources checked. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously it depends on how you read it, but the way I wrote my message, it was intended to be read with a calm voice. Perhaps I should have said "Please don't change his article again". Either way, my bad. Nevertheless, one club "agreeing" to sell to another does not mean that the deal is done. – PeeJay 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
BBC is now reporting it as a done deal, complete with Cahill's personal terms here. Ok, I see your 'my bad', thanks for that. Your wording kind of seemed somewhat peremptory kwim?...Don't change his article again just struck me as if you had templated a regular. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the BBC is reporting that Cahill has agreed "outline personal terms", rather than the finer details of a finalised contract. Neither club has confirmed the sale either. – PeeJay 15:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
...sorting out references and links, since they are the same. To be on the safe side I loaded everything in to make sure the information was sourced, and need help adding "children" to the InfoBox.
I've put this article on the Actors and Filmmakers/Assessment list but don't know how long they take or what they'll look for. Cheers, Shir-Eltoo 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I see you've submitted it for Review. There's a little bit of a backlog at Articles for Creation, about 250 other drafts are also waiting to be Reviewed, so you'll probably have to wait for to hear. Good luck, Shearonink (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You're invited to Masterpiece Museum Edit-a-Thon!
"Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum
The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill[talk] 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
When
August 10, 2012, 10 AM - 4 PM
Where
Smithsonian American Art Museum, 7th & F St NW, Washington, DC
Did you know that instead of "style=white-space:nowrap" you can use {{nowrap}}? Its a bit easier (for me anyway). Cheers. Moondyne (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. Is one or the other preferred? At least at first, when I tried to do it that way I was having some trouble with the {{nowrap|name or date}} code. I do admit, I can barely code text, much less Tables so the code underlying the List of professional cyclists... is kind of messy since I've been learning as I go along. By the way, thank you for taking an interest in the List, it's been a massive fixer-upper, always good to have more editorial eyes. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
