User:NQ/Archives/Archive 2

__NOINDEX__

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

More personal attacks
Since you requested her to stop, has continued in her personal attacks, this time on the already closed deletion debate:. Plus note her snide demand in her merge comment on the target article's Talk page:. (And also this: .) Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm quite weary of all the unnecessary drama when dealing with this user. Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies pretty much sums it up. User:Bishonen had warned her earlier regarding this, as have many others. Anyway, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. is in need of significant pruning. I'll get to that sometime this week, and if the attacks persist, perhaps they need to be shown the door.- NQ  (talk)  04:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, N, I agree that the article is a bloated monstrosity; plus the citations do not support some of the claims. Same is actually true of the Flavia article, which at one point I tried to trim a bit. It's really hard to see the worthwhile and factual forest (if any) in the middle of all the distracting trees in these various articles. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I just trimmed some of the overwhelming bloat of the Companies section of Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. Could you keep an eye on it and make sure it is not added back in? And also help trim and get the other articles and sections up to standard? Plus also the non-notable and inappropriate "What links here" to all the articles and redirects? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've taken a go at a handful of articles and trimmed it a little bit. I couldn't keep up with the refbloat and left it as it is. I've removed all the images of gravel, heavy machinery and unnecessary linkages to various other articles. Also merged a lot of content and removed various headers; please feel free to fix what is out of place. - NQ  (talk)  20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also could you keep an eye on St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York since I removed this. Thanks. - NQ (talk)  20:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The amount of mind-numbing detail necessary to clean up these articles, and the fact that so little of the text of any of them merits inclusion or is substantiated by the citations, and the fact that some of the material has been placed in a very false light, means that this cleanup job is very time-consuming, and 's suggestion of WP:TNT is looking more and more appealing. I may not have time immediately to assist, as I'm focusing on some other matters currently, but I'm definitely aware of the need for a general overhaul. I appreciate that you have a valid grasp of the situation and are helping out! Thanks again. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked through Gernatt Sr. and I don't see notability at all -- it's all puff pieces and passing mentions. Either under notability or TNT the article should go to AfD. If someone there can identify the sources lending notability, great, but editors shouldn't have to waste time wading through such grotesque bloat on the possibility there's notability in there somewhere. Let me know of any AfD. Same goes for Flavia_C._Gernatt, and I don't know what the notability criteria are for horses but those articles should be reviewed as well. Also, forget about Daniellagreen. She'll just drone on and on no matter what. She just doesn't get it. EEng (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice work on Gernatt Sr. It's almost a decent article, although unreliable. I corrected some of the more egregious errors in the Company section, but I didn't check more than a few things (the sentences I altered). In all honesty, every single statement in all of the many articles is suspect until checked and found to be substantiated. I've seen far too many false claims in them to trust even a single innocuous phrase. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I really think you're wasting your time working on it in detail before sending it to AfD. The only effort worth putting in before that would be to slash out all the clearly inappropriate cites, so that participants in the deletion debate don't have to wade through them all looking for notability. EEng (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. There is too much misinformation and too many false and inflated claims; all of these -- not so much necessarily the kind of citations -- make the notability seem much greater than it is, and the entire article has to be combed through for misinformation and false/inflated claims before any kind of accurate notability can even be determined. (Same with the other articles.) Softlavender (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice I said working on it in detail . In other words, a rough cut to get rid of ref bloat, which might confuse an AfD, is all that's necessary. EEng (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a detailed look at all the citations and get back. - NQ (talk)  14:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, wow, just wow. In addition to her bizarre new claims/attacks/threats on the Talk page, this is really getting beyond the pale. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, very petty indeed. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. - NQ (talk)  13:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed
Eyes needed please on Roman Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, where DG is replacing promotional and irrelevant material. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I suspect Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia really is notable, believe it or not. EEng (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Because of the alarming amount of misinformation, not to mention the non-notable citations, my personal preference would be to remove any information in any of these articles that is not cited and verifiable by a clickable and viewable (even if viewable means Highbeam) citation. For just one example, there is still an item in the Gernatt article cited to "St. Joseph School Graduation Program 2013". In my view this is not only non-notable, it's non-verifiable, given the unreliable witness of the article creator. And the item it substantiates is trivial, does not establish any kind of notability. I personally think all such information we can't see should go. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, for these articles, I think that may be necessary. However, remember that the notability is the test only for whether an article should exist, not for the content of the article. WP:NNC EEng (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about notability. I'm only concerned at this point with cleaning up the articles by removing falsehoods, trivia, bloated claims, puffery, wordiness, and non-accessible/inappropriate/non-substantiating citations. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you mentioned "non-notable information" and I was just reminding that information doesn't have to be notable to go in an article. Just a clarification, as I completely agree with what you're doing. EEng (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I misread you. Substitute the word "non-noteworthy". Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I couldn't reply soon. I went through a whole bunch of citations yesterday and compiled a list here. . Many of the sources are sketchy and most only mention the subject in passing. Others such as this reads more like a press release.  I guess it all boils down to Dan Gernatt Farms and the notability of the horses. - NQ  (talk)  17:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Topic ban? It may be the only way these articles can be effectively cleaned up and brought within WP guidelines without constant interference. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're anywhere near a topic ban yet. We just have to keep calm and carry on. DG Daniellagreen may very well get a clue sooner or later, though probably later. If it comes to it, I think WP:CIR might be more on point. EEng (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Flavia C. Gernatt needs a renom. There's not a single bit of coverage on her except for her obit in the local newspaper of record (Buffalo News), and even it doesn't present anything noteworthy. The article was nommed in July but got a lot of sympathy votes because the nominator is batshit crazy and had been stalking and attacking the article creator; it also got Keep votes from people who were stunned into acquiescense by the mind-numbing display of irrelevant bloat and overcitation. Now it's a little more obvious that there is no WP:GNG, WP:N, or WP:BIO coverage of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All this stuff needs re-nominating (though I haven't looked into the horses -- I'm sure there's a horse project who might take a look for us). EEng (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Really really really can't nom anything until it gets straightened out, fully verified, and all the spurious information and irrelevant and unnecessary citations have been removed. I've mentioned this above. All of these articles are extremely misleading until they are brought up to wiki standard. So far, only Flavia has been, as I've checked every single citation that was findable and viewable. (The stuff about her providing the rectory isn't checkable, but that's the only thing left that isn't.) Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, press on. I was just agreeing that AfD is the fate of all these articles, sooner or later. EEng (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments (1)The court case probably is notable, but the article needs context to show why it's an impt precedent. The minor details have nothing much do to with its importance, but it ned uphold local zoning regulations about extractive industries that were more restrictive than the overall state legislation in a state where environmental issues on this are a very major concern.
 * (2) For FG, I've done some condensation and intend to do more. I would be very reluctant for us to make a general statement that for a co-owned business, one of a couple is the more impt. The rectory was almost certainly a joint gift, & this probably can be proven.
 * (3), With respect to my degree of clue, what would you have be do, try to delete on the basis of my own views about what WP should be like & my own view of contributors? If people have any degree of respect to me,  that would be a good way to end it.  There are some problems in taking effective action: Except in extreme cases, the community has been reluctant to agree with my attempts to say that promotionalism plus marginal notability is reason for deletion. For another, the community has no good standards for proportionality. I've tried to say that the length & detail of an article should be in proportion tot he importance of the subject, which I think mere common sense & directly derived from "WP is an Encyclopedia" ; the community rather thinks it should be in proportion to the amount of material that can be found.  My ability to argue for these general propositions about WP   depends upon good test cases, and a case where personal feelings have become this much involved is not a good test case.
 * (4) I very much dislike our practice of letting people work here sometimes for years in whatever absurd pattern they want until they go too far, when the ban-hammer descends on them. It's fundamentally unfair, and even if I cannot stop the persecution of someone, I will not join it. I similarly think it a very poor idea for an editor to get too focussed on the work of a particular other editor. Quite apart from being dangerous in terms of getting into trouble oneself, it's not a very productive use of one's efforts here. Bad as this situation is, it is not about to destroy the encyclopedia.
 * (5) As you have seen, our attempts to root out sockpuppettry and paid editing have run up against the community's strong insistence of the value of anonymity over everything else. The editor who is probably our most effective admin in these matters was almost deadmined by arbcom a few months ago (don't look for the case, it's not on-wiki) and has understandably been much less active since.   I've suggested a change in community attitudes here several times; I will not propose it formally, because it will not come near having  consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To (whose mal-signed post that was above [and I don't know how to fix it]): Your eyes and condensation are appreciated. I'd like to point out that WP notability requirements as I understand them are concerned with level of independent coverage, not with what business(es) a person co-owned. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

((I was in the middle of things; I've added a good deal. I will just further add that the use of the GNG guidelines in LOCAL depends very heavily upon interpretation of independence, & the community in effect uses them to do whatever it wants to. Trying to go by the formal rules needs to be supplemented by showing why the rules as applied give a good result. I have a few thousand afds worth of experience here in trying to find an effective balance. ))  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some strange force at work on this page such that everything I say is misinterpreted. All I've said (or meant to say) is that the huge bloat of these articles has, as sometimes happens, fooled people into thinking there's notability-qualifying coverage when there really isn't any, just by dint of the bulk of the "References" section -- "Gee, with all those sources I guess there must be notability in there somewhere!" Therefore, after the bloat of non-RS cites is cut, non-notability will be readily apparent. Or maybe in among all those weeds actual notability will be found (but I doubt it). EEng (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To EEng, whose help has been enormously appreciated: I think the problem is insisting, or even implying, that the fate of all these articles is AfD. That's unfair off the bat, and prejudicial, and could come back to bite you. As frustrating as all the problems in these articles are (and the combative inability and refusal to learn of the article creator), they have to be looked at very closely with an eye to checking every single citation and every single assertion. It's extremely time-consuming. And the end result may actually be different than your prognosis. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as notability goes sure, we could be pleasantly surprised. But in the case of this "tribe" of articles, WP:TNT may apply. EEng (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To DGG again (re: additions 3–5 up above): I don't see any persecution going on, at least not on my end. My aim is to clean up articles that have clear and very distressing problems. No one in this entire discussion has even hinted at paid editing, so I'm not sure where that is coming from. "Fixation" might be more like it; but COI hasn't been mentioned and is so far beside the point it doesn't need to be wondered about one way or another and is completely irrelevant in my view. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Important clarification for : You wrote: "(3), With respect to my degree of clue, what would you have me do, try to delete on the basis of my own views about what WP should be like & my own view of contributors?" PLEASE NOTE: EEng's prior comment "DG may very well get a clue sooner or later, though probably later" refers to , NOT to you. I made the same mistake myself when scanning it, and just now realized you had misinterpreted it just like I did on my initial scan. I hope this clarifies matters. We've been using initials instead of spelling the username out, and unfortunately it bears resemblance to your screenname. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gracious! Thanks indeed for clearing that up. EEng (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the "strange force at work on this page" LOL. I admit to having not fully read or comprehended other of your posts here. :-) Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification. I admit i was a little puzzled.   As for what you meant to say, yes, it has happened  that promotional writers sometimes do get to understand the requirements here, and learn to produce acceptable articles. There may be more reason to expect this here than for the usual, because Daniellagreen does seem will and able to fo a thorough job of research.  DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I could believe that, but I'm not so sanguine -- she seems congenitally incapable of seeing beyond her imagined persecution . EEng (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies fulfilled
See :
 * When only the editors involved in a discussion have a negative outlook and nothing good to say, then it's the negative perspective that will be reached. A majority of people decided to elect Hitler, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.  A majority of people in the South wanted to maintain slavery and break away from the union, but that doesn't mean it was right, ethical, or just.  Politics put Jesus to death, but that doesn't mean it was right, ethical, or just either. ...  Most people seem to always want others to agree with them, however when there is disagreement, they cannot agree to disagree.  Instead, there is the desire to conquer, control, and silence those who have disagreed.  How many more people would have been killed in the Holocaust and World War II if Hitler's regime hadn't been stopped?  How many more Blacks would have been lynched and murdered in the South if slavery had continued?  How much more good could Jesus have done on earth if he hadn't been tortured and put to death?  Perhaps unlike many here, I look at the bigger picture ...

Big picture indeed! EEng (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm speechless. Nazism, Slavery and the Lord. Perhaps we should rewrite WP:CONSENSUS. - NQ (talk)  19:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At the very least it should be modified to clarify that consensus doesn't count if its effect is to bring Hitler to power, perpetuate slavery, or crucify Jesus. (Those decisions would be left to J. Wales.) EEng (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much,  - NQ  (talk)  09:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird
That looked like an edit war to me, sorry about that. I nearly ARVed you because of that. DS Crowned (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite alright. Have a nice day! - NQ  (talk)  00:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DS Crowned (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Don't worry about it! - NQ (talk)  00:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the history behind Matinee de Septembre, especially the Reichenbach and Comstock saga. Fine work on the article, Chris - NQ (talk)  13:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's certainly a bizarre case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Update on a source request
Hey NQ,

First off, thanks for all the work that you do. I really appreciate it. Any luck on "Mihran Mesrobian, 86, Award-Winning Architect,” Washington Star-News, 25 September 1975? Just checking. Étienne Dolet (talk)


 * I've emailed you the article. Sorry for the delay. I could only find online archives of the Washington Star here and the Newsbank subscription I have access to did not include it as part of the package. But as it turns out, this particular article was readily available at Genealogy Bank. I've also emailed you two other related articles in the Washington Post. - NQ (talk)  22:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Haha you got that right. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! You guys are too kind. Thanks for the barnstar, . - NQ (talk)  19:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks for helping out so quickly with the journal article. (I was wondering if I would have to drive the half hour to the U. to check it out. Gale didn't have it.) --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. Do let me know if you need anything else. - NQ (talk)  10:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal History
You just removed a section of the article on Ashish Nanda, calling it personal history and 'not in the source'. Please, check the link given carefully. This interesting fact about his moving to Harvard is clearly and vividly mentioned in the source (Business Standard) article, which is one of well-known business newspapers of India. I suggest that you reconsider deleting this portion and restore it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.225.152 (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied here - NQ (talk)  10:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Cutting out the middleman
Do you think you could acquire for me the International Directory of Company Histories article on MEMC aka MEMC Electronic Materials? I have an iteration of it here (and here), but am befuddled as to how to accurately cite it because the year, volume number, and/or author don't match what I find listed elsewhere, so I'd rather have a confirmed and respected source with all of those correct parameters. This compendium indicates it is in Volume 81, but the free online iteration says 2007, so who knows. I hope you can help. :) Article being improved: SunEdison (the company switched names in late May 2013, if that matters). You can shoot it to me via email if you are able. Thanks! PS: As usual, need the whole citation including publisher, year, volume, and author. Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, there is only one entry for MEMC and that is in Volume 81 and it was published in 2007.


 * MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., page(s): 249-252. International Directory of Company Histories Ed. Jay P. Pederson .  Vol. 81.  Detroit: St. James Press, 2007.


 * I've sent you the pdf by mail. And yes, I'm aware of my awesomeness. :) - NQ (talk)  02:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So, no barnstars, pies, kittens, or hamburgers (vegetarian or otherwise) required? Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever. Meanwhile I've sent you another mail. Do check. - NQ (talk)  03:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Information wants to be free. That's why Wikipedia exists. Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

re:RX
Resolved marked. Thank you. --MtBell 09:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
I've been on an unfortunately longish break, but just noticed that you helped out with source location for an oddball article in Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. That was exactly what I needed. Much belated thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)