| Revision as of 14:48, 11 June 2008 editBradv (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators37,842 editsm →Dr. Allan Bonner: cleanup← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:44, 11 June 2008 edit undoTragedyStriker (talk | contribs)387 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
| :Sarah | :Sarah | ||
| :] (]) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | :] (]) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Zachary Jaydon == | |||
| My apologies. I am in the midst of scanning magazine articles and covers as well as providing album scans and such because my citing is in question? Would you like a link to these scans ? | |||
| Thank you. | |||
Revision as of 20:44, 11 June 2008
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
SolarAid
Hi Brad - thanks for the welcome. It worked.
Re: new SolarAid article "written like an ad" and "references and sources"
I'm really new at this so I have a lot of questions: Are the notices 'normal' for new articles? Should I work to improve the article myself? Will it disappear if I don't. Or should I let go and let the midnight elves take it to the next stage?
Wikiscopia (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so quick to tag
Erm, you tagged an article within 60 seconds of my first save. You also tagged an article with a notability tag, even though it's clearly listed as winning an award. I appreciate that you're being vigilant here, but be aware that sometimes articles are created in multiple edits. I recommend that you work on patrolling articles that are at least 24 hours old, and assume good faith on stubs that are in the process of being created by established editors. --Elonka 00:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the explanation on DonnyB's talk page - you put it much beter than I did! munchman | talk; 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Fabric Structures -- information
This page is not advertising, nor is it a copyright infringement. This page is public knowledge from www.fabricstructures.com, and I have referenced it there. Please advise and explain your comment further. There are numerous companies who are blatantly advertising on Misplaced Pages (like Rubb and others). However, this is not doing anything near that. Please advise. Mtc38118 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
David Eisner
I honestly am not sure. It was created from a WP:AFC request by an ip user and I apparently missed that it was a copyvio. I've given it a bit of a rewrite to avoid copyvio problems. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
TR100
Hi Bradv - I noticed that you proposed TR100 to be deleted due to indiscriminate list of information. I looked at the page and am not sure if TR100 fits into this category, especially when the policy page only mentioned five examples cases, all of which differs greatly from TR100. Can you explain to me (in a bit more detail) why you think TR100 is an indiscriminate list of information? Also, can you show me the previous consensus for deleting articles of this type? Thanks! --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's also not a directory. The rationale is that this is a list of information that should be published elsewhere, and is not something you would find in an encylopedia. It also completely unreferenced, so it fails the verifiability policy. If you disagree with my reasoning, please express that on the article's talk page so that others can join in the discussion. Thanks. BradV 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have created a section on the talk page. Perhaps we can talk there. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo's picture
It seemed more... flattering... than the current one, to be honest LiteralKa (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you ask Jimbo what he thinks of it? It's his userpage. BradV 00:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay! I will, I didn't even think of that. LiteralKa (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Traditionalist world view (American)
I am a little flustered by the amount of text you have deleted or tagged as OR because you have unilaterally deemed it so. Have you read all of these sources and decided that these are my own syntheses of the materials? It's not a perfect article, and I doubt that an article on a topic like this would be met with much acceptance even if it were perfected, but the information, on the whole, is a distillation of published and reliable sources. I've let this article sit for a good while hoping that someone else would swoop in and make constructive edits by ADDING TEXT rather than taking the easy route and deleting with abandon. Sorry if this is offensive, but I'm reaching the last straw on my own faith in the "Assume good faith" policy. YouMustBeLion (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with the article is that it doesn't meet the policies on neutral point of view or verifiability. Misplaced Pages is not an authority on anything, nor is it the place to put our own essays (original research). Instead, it is a tertiary source, summarizing and referencing what other people have written on topics. What this means is that we can't synthesize (or distill as you put it) books on particular topics and reach our own conclusions - rather we need to find those conclusions drawn elsewhere in newspapers, magazines, etc. and reference them in the article. So basically, 90% of that article is your own words expressing your ideas and using sources to identify the facts behind your conclusions. This is perfect for an essay in college, or a thesis in university (I'm sure you got a good mark for what you wrote), but in its very nature it is not a proper encyclopedia article. BradV 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletion
We have continued to be deleted from Misplaced Pages because of our article. Dr. Allan Bonner is as notable as any other author or television host on wikipedia. He is published and is a very successful risk and crisis management specialist. Can you please explain what is going on?
Thanks,
Sarah
Allanbonner (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, it is not a resume or any form of advertising. His page allows people to learn the importance of risk and crisis management in a communications capacity. Communications is a rapidly growing field and it is important that people learn about the growth of the field and the people contributing to it. Is there a number I can call or another avenue to explore. There are other people such as journalists, artists and authors who have pages. Why are we getting kicked off. I have followed all the same guidelines which they have. I would like the speedy deletion removed.
- Sarah
- Allanbonner (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Zachary Jaydon
My apologies. I am in the midst of scanning magazine articles and covers as well as providing album scans and such because my citing is in question? Would you like a link to these scans ?
Thank you.