User talk:Bfigura/Archive 7

== Wikipedia Signpost : 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 31 August 2009 ==


 * Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
 * Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
 * Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
 * News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
 * Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wilson article and MSNBC story
It proved difficult to find a citation that was not from an opinion piece or a traditionally conservative news source. But if you read further in the article, it says:

"What the bill says about illegal immigrants The House bill says illegal immigrants cannot get subsidies to take part in the new insurance system, but doesn't have a specific mechanism to verify immigration status. Illegal immigrants residing in the United States would be required to have health insurance."

That said, I don't really mind if the citation is removed so long as the text stays.

Spalvisak (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Spalvisak


 * I left the text (since it was backed by another citation), but since the bulk of the MSNBC article seemed to argue against that point, I thought it made more sense to move it to the other section. Best, -- B figura (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson
Your contribution to to the [Joe Wilson (U.S. politician)] has been reverted, it is not relevant to his biography. Its proper place would be the article about the upcoming election in his district. EricLeFevre (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I more or less agree. See the talk page of the corresponding article. -- B figura (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mark the change as minor when I added the content. I marked it minor when I added my signature. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that comment was directed at Legis, not you. (Legis had been making changes to the article and marking them as minor, despite content alteration). Best, -- B figura (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. Do you think the forecast belongs there? I think on balance it doesn't even though I posted it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which forecast would that be? -- B figura (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Placid Oil
Were you responsable for deleting my article about Placid Oil? I think that article was good.Agre22 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)agre22
 * Hi Agre22. Yes, I did place a tag on the article stating that I felt it was a candidate for deletion (the guidelines for which are here). I didn't actually delete the article, that would have been handled by an administrator who looked at the page after I tagged it, and agreed with my assessment. If you'd like the article to be brought back so that you can work on it, that can be done. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Username problem
Hello Bfigura. Thank you for the welcome.

Regarding the username, thanks for the heads-up. I am the only person that uses this account. I picked a username that indicated my employer so that I could get any questions of conflict-of-interest out of the way early on. Since my workplace is sometimes involved with controversial issues and people, I thought it wise to be upfront about it. However, if the username is a problem, wouldn't it be easier to rename the account? I'm not sure what benefit is gained from starting anew.

Thanks, --Hoover Press (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi There. Usually it's not worth changing it unless you've been around for a while and you want to preserve your edits (if you only have a few edits, you're usually asked to just create a new account). If you do want to change though, there's info here. No harm in asking if the bureaucrats would be willing to rename your account. Best, -- B figura (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, according to the username policy page, it's easier to just create a new account, so that's what I'll do. Thanks. --Hoover Press (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of English Books
An article that you have been involved in editing, English Books, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk. -- B figura (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we can userfy them, delete them from article space, and close the AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, either. I guess we can db them.  I'll do that.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

New world order proposed move
I've relisted the move proposal for New world order at Talk:New world order. Sorry for the inconvenience, but please recast your !vote (if desired) under the relisted request. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. !voted. -- B figura (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Little Cousin Scampi page
why did you redirect my Little Cousin Scampi page? i was just going to add to it! (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh, sorry, it looked like it was an attempt to create a redirect to me. I've gone and restored it to your version. Best, -- B figura (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the advice. I will be more carful in the future-- Nemesis of  Reason  17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

hi - about Chris Meek
Hello, received your message about the Chris Meek entry. One of my first pages created on Wiki. I'm the web designer for Chris Meek and have been helping him with his different websites. I was contacted by a Scott Duffy who wanted to create a wiki page to talk about Chris's non-for-profit works (the START Now, and Soldier Socks) pages.

Scott is not a computer literate kind of guy and has no idea how to edit html etc. I'm just assisting him on creating the page, all content was created by him. Should i have created an account under Scotts Name? Please help, we'd like to do this properly and help give Chris the credit he's due for helping all of these Families and Soldiers overseas.

Scotts email is redacted

Sincerely, Eric Esydor (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you shouldn't be creating articles for anyone you're involved with or work with. (Our policy on this, detailed here, has more on this). However, that said, it does appear that you're creating a reasonably neutral (if somewhat overly favorable) article. The one critique I have is that it doesn't really incorporate enough third-party reliable sources. Basically, you find to find mainstream articles (newspaper articles, not PR stuff) that talks about him in a non-trivial, detailed way. Ie, you can't rely on the charity's webpage as a source, you need to another source that discusses the charity / Chris


 * There's also another issue, in that usernames (for legal licensing reasons) are only allowed to be tied to one person. (This creates some problems when you create something for someone else, which is why we don't allow this: ie, you just legally claimed ownership of his ideas. I'm not sure what the best remedy this would be, other than to have him edit under his own account). Also, your username seems to be your company's name, so if this account is shared, you should create another account for your sole use. If not, that's fine (although if you repeatedly were to edit from that account on subjects tied to the company, the account might be blocked as a promotional account). Hope this helps, and if there's more questions, let me know. -- B figura  (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Message
Hi, thank you for your response. Trying our best to satisfy all of your requests in a timely manner... Be happy to have Scott create an account and let him update the Chris Meek Page, only reason i was involved was because i somewhat know how to do html. i'm in no way a writer (wish i was).

I'm pasting a message that Scott Duffy wrote to me this morning in response to all of this... I have received a large collection of 3rd party Sources for more background and stories on Chris and we're hoping to get this up as well including and not limited to:

Anti-Foreclosure event... written by Elizabeth Kim, The Stamford Advocate (5/30/09) Foreclosure forum comes to Stamford.. Connecticut Post 4/14/09 Thumbs Up Thumbs Down - - Advocate 7/1/09 NPR Radio - On Point with Tom Ashbrook Interview with Chris Meek - October 2009

Here's the email from Scott Duffy.

To whom it may concern,

I used to work with Christopher Meek at Goldman Sachs and was there when he began to consider assisting in the current economic and housing crisis. I, like many others, was amazed at what he was able to do and the speed in which he was able to do it. With a very small budget he has made tremendous improvements in the lives of scores of families in his neighborhood. The efforts he has begun are and should be seen and used as a model for others across the nation as we struggle in these difficult times.

His organization, START NOW, has facilitated homeowners meeting with the individual, at most of the banks that lend in his area, who is capable of making real adjustments to families mortgages and thus allowing them to remain in their homes. As the Federal Government struggles with the problem, this is an example of what one dedicated individual can do when he/she sets their mind to it. This organization is now branching out and working with professionals to bring jobs assistance to his communities and soon will be bringing employers and job seekers together, just as they brought banks and borrowers together. This is truly an independent and worthy organization with a goal and mission which is above reproach, all founded and led by Christopher Meek of Stamford CT, surely that qualifies and meets the standards which Wikipedia hold themselves to.

Following on the work of START NOW, Soldier Socks was begun, again at the request of someone else. What began as a request from a friend to assist in a drive to collect socks to send to Afghanistan has turned quickly into a non-profit organization which has shipped over a TON of material to our men and women overseas. They have attracted and worked with corporate partners and now with the Marines and Air Force to facilitate the difficult process of delivering these items to those in need. The following this group has attained is remarkable as they have been endorsed by elected officials as well as candidates for some of the highest offices in the Nation. This month there is a socks drive for Soldier Socks going on at 10 public elementary schools, 2 parochial schools and 1 private pre-school all in Stamford CT.

Many people I know have asked me why someone with a list of accomplishments and good work are not on Wikipedia and until recently it was a question which I was not able to answer. I myself often turn to Wikipedia for research and to obtain unbiased and clear answers or descriptions, especially as I am moving across the country and am  frequently looking up cities and towns. This led to my understanding that all entries on Wikipedia are created and submitted by the public and then edited and approved by people such as yourselves who ensure that the standards that people like myself expect are lived up to. It became apparent quite quickly that my computer skills were not sufficient to the task and as a result I reached out to Mr. Sydor, who I found on the website for STARTNOW.

Mr Sydor explained to me that he is not able to create a site for Mr Meek as he has done work for him in the past and that could pose a  conflict of interest to those running and maintaining Wikipedia. He attempted to explain how I should create an entry for Mr Meek and that I would need references and source material and that the bar for acceptance is quite high. I then researched and wrote up the language for the page, modeling it on other pages which were currently on Wikipedia, however I was still unable to translate it into the correct format for submission. At this point I again reached out to Mr Sydor for help. I sent him all of the work that I had done and he volunteered to translate and submit my work for me, I did offer to pay him for his time and efforts but he refused any compensation at all.

I greatly appreciate the standards and quality control which allow for the content found on Wikipedia to be of the caliber that it is and would do nothing to lower that in any way. I do certainly feel that Mr Meek deserves a listing on this site as his work and efforts are making major contributions to a large and diverse group of people. His organizations are non-profit and are attracting donors and supporters from around the nation and his efforts have been carried in publications as reputable as Business Week Online, The London Telegraph, The Bristol Press, The Stamford Advocate, NPR television Hartford, and most recently NPR Radio Hartford. Certainly these institutions hold themselves an their reporters to high standards. His charitable work has been endorsed by no less that the Lt. Governor of CT as well as state and local leaders and CT candidates for US Senate. I sincerely hope that you agree with my assessment, Christopher Meek is a man of interest and merits a place on your site. Also, I hope that none of this reflects poorly on Mr. Sydor who was simply assisting me in my efforts.

Thank you for your time and consideration and please feel free to contact me should I be able to clarify anything.

Yours Truly,

Scott V Duffy redact personal info

Esydor (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't had time to read that yet, although I will once off of work. But in the future, you may not wish to post personal info (phone numbers, emails) for privacy reasons. I've already redacted the information in this (and previous) cases. It would also be possible for you have your edits removed via WP:OVERSIGHT, which permanently deletes the revisions from Wikipedia, but it's up to you as to whether you'd like that done. (Directions are on how to do that are here) -- B figura (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After a bit of thought, I've already filed a request for oversight, which I imagine will be approved. Just wanted to let you know. Best, -- B figura (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I've had a chance to read through the letter from Scott, and I agree, there's probably enough reliable sources out there to create an article. (And I think you're doing a good job of writing a fairly neutral one so far). My only concern is the license issue (see WP:NOSHARE). But so long as you're writing material, and not just transcribing an article someone else has typed up, I think you're ok. And as a PS, the oversight has been carried out, so Scott's info should be ok. -- B figura (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from IP
I was actually stating a policy on bio's to "avoid libelous actions" not "threatening" civil procedure. I think this is clear, and the mere mention of being careful not to make libelous statements so that 'wiki' editors don't become the subject of civil proceedings, is not a threat of civil proceedings. Do you see what I'm saying?75.169.188.7 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

has been given a 'NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ACTION' to Wikipedia, which apparently changed the criteria of the page to "a living person bio'. This is a knowledge statement, not a threat and is comment on other conversation taking place on outside sources75.169.188.7 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC) not wiki.


 * I'm aware of BLP, thank you. This, which I believe is from you, still reads like a legal threat to me. However, I'll take your word that you didn't mean to give that impression. In any case, it's a moot point as the article will likely be deleted. -- B figura (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow NPOV
You removed only the conservative commentators' reactions to the Nobel prize award to Obama. Please follow WP:NPOV. Reconsideration (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to discuss this on the talk page (where I've gone over this), but I don't think I really violated NPOV at all. I actually just deleted the latter half of the comments, without regard for partisanship. If you'll notice, most of the comments I didn't remove are actually negative. My goal here is to remove bloat (ie, the excess number of comments from people at the WP, etc), not hack the article into conforming to my viewpoint. I still feel that the article is suffering from bloat, but I'll leave it up to you to decide which sources are redundant. Best, -- B figura (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-barnstar
After reading your AfD comment, I had to do a bit of research to find out what "!=" meant. Soon after I discovered it was equivalent to "≠" (what I had initially supposed). You get a pseudo-barnstar (a barnstar without me taking the effort to go to the page and pick one out and nicely wrap it for you) for being the proximate cause of today's "one thing is learned every day" :)
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 19:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Aw, thanks :) -- B figura (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Cites
Those citations support the labels "premature," "inappropriate," and "preposterous." If you think the sentence misleadingly implies that Lech Walesa himself said those words, please help rewrite it, but my intention was to cite separately all of the claims made in the sentence, which is what I did. Thanks! Bojangles04 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think it sounds highly misleading to write it that way, so I pulled it (per WP:V, the cites should back up the statement). Personally, I think the whole quote isn't neutral enough for the lede of the article, so I'm going to see if I can find a quote that still summarizes the controversy, but does so in a less POV way. Best, -- B figura (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I rewrote the sentence to try to more objectively portray Lech Walesa's criticism (as opposed to generic criticism), which also has the advantage of limiting the opening discussion to disagreement between two past winners of the award. Let me know what you think. Bojangles04 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I might be tempted to pull the "despite his proposals to do so" bit, since it sounds a tad bit POV for a lede. But other than that, I like it. I do like the idea of keeping the controversy sumary to two nobel laureates, especially since they both give reasonably non-partisan quotes. -- B figura (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can definitely see your reason for wanting to do that, but it's grounded in Walesa's actual quote where he talks about how Obama is "proposing" but hasn't actually "done" it yet. Bojangles04 (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. I was just aiming for a bit more NPOV. But I'm fine with current version you wrote. (I also mentioned that TrackerWiki might want to stop in here, since s/he keeps changing it to a version where the article isn't truly supported by the cites. -- B figura (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or TrackerWiki will just revert back without a good explanation. Would you like to take a stab at talking to him/her? -- B figura (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like TrackerWiki is under control for the time being and has already been warned about being in an Edit War. I'll probably check back later tonight or tomorrow, though. Thanks for working through that paragraph with me so constructively! Bojangles04 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a pleasure. Have a good evening, -- B figura (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Why? It's very sourced and I took lots of pictures :( XRDoDRX (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because none of the sources are reliable sources, or establish notability of the subject. (It's nothing personal, I personally thing it looks like a cool toy, but that's not a good reason to keep an article. Feel free to disagree in the AfD discussion though, -- B figura (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect
Redundant? The are no pages at ANI or MfD dealing with slurs and false accusations. WQA is the place to deal with such. Not MfD. Not ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, WQA aren't archived or closed. They are -discussed-. It is not some place that you can just randomly close things. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, if somethings spreading from ANI to RfC to MfD to WQA I can certainly invoke WP:IAR (and WP:FORUMSHOP I suppose) to avoid creating more drama. -- B figura (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is spreading? The attacks came at me at MfD. They are false allegations. They deal with nothing else but two users making directly false claims and were unwilling to put up evidence. IAR means to not disrupt the Wiki, and keeping dispute resolution from happening when people are being directly incivil is the direct opposite. It would be a Point violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. Based on what I'm seeing at the above forums, there is roughly zero probability that escalating this to WQA will either (a) result in the other editors in question changing their behavior, (b) reduce the overall drama load, (c) solve anything. I'd suggest resolving the situation in place where ever it's occurring rather than having the heat/light increase any further. (Or alternatively, just disengage from the negativity). -- B figura (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If having outside opinions would not result in "changing their behavior", then perhaps you need to WP:AGF. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do AGF. However, assuming good faith does not require me to ignore the history at MfD/RfC/ANI and make unrealistically naive assumptions about the future probabilities of this going away in WQA. -- B figura (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, please tell me where a WQA asking them to provide diffs for their claims about impropriety is connected to the subject of the MfD or the ANI or the RFC? These are very separate behaviors and issues, and they should not be confused. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any assertions about connectivity. I'm simply saying that given the circumstances, if the disputes can't be resolved in the present locations, it's rather unlikely that a different outcome will result at WQA. Ergo, there's no point in starting another discussion there that will generate more heat than light. -- B figura (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm not making any assertions about connectivity" and "if somethings spreading from ANI to RfC to MfD to WQA" contradict. It is apparent that you are not speaking objectively and that I am just wasting my time. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you regarding one of those statements. -- B figura (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bed, so I figured I'd close out. From what I see, you've done some amazing work. So why not just rise above the present situation, and do some more amazing editing? Best, -- B figura (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama Nobel Nomination
You said "The version I initally wrote, which has been changed a bit through discussions, had 2 quotes: one positive from Gore, and one negative from Lech Wałęsa."

The quote from Lech Walesa is not negative. It is somewhere between neutral and supportive. It says that the award came "too soon", not that it was a bad decision, or that he was totally undeserving of the award. The Taliban quote, which has been cited as often as Walesa's is negative -- saying that it is "ridiculous",etc.

I think all three belong -- positive, neutral, and negative.Jrtayloriv (talk)
 * I'd characterize it as negative/neutral myself, but the original version was worded along the lines of ~"he hasn't achieved any of the goals he said he would", but that got changed at some point. I still disagree on the taliban in the lede, but I can wait on that. However, I think your block quote of the taliban (which is the only block quote in the response section) isn't sustainable. (At the very least, only because we'd need a positive (and maybe neutral) block response too, and then the who thing becomes a mess). -- B figura (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way -- I chose to format the quote in the "reactions" section as a block quote because it was four lines long, which is over the standard minimum length of a block quote. (see for example http://www.englishdiscourse.org/block.quotes.htm). There is nothing special about this quote in particular, other than its length. Any other quotes that are >=4 lines should be in block quotes as well. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Is there a reason to quote it in it's entirety? This probably doesn't come as a surprise to you :) but I think it gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. I'd rather trim it down to the salient points and stick it back in main body of the afghanistan response. And yes, I know it's heavily quoted in the media, but that doesn't mean it's the most encyclopedic negative response (considering the main objection is not the war thing, but the timing of the award being before he's been in office for 2 years). -- whatever conBut again, no rush to meet the editorial deadline. -- B figura (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to quote it in it's entirety?  -- I think it should be quoted in its entirety because of the large volume of news coverage it has received. in this case, the Taliban happens to be one of the most notable sources in the entire article, considering the number of reliable sources which mention it.
 * I think it gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. -- The Taliban is less of a "minority" than Lech Walesa (considering that it is a group made up of more than one person), yet you don't cite his opinion as a "minority viewpoint".
 * I'd rather trim it down to the salient points --- It's not that long anyway. I did "trim it down to it's salient points" in the lead, and then quoted it in full later in the section on Afghanistan.
 * but that doesn't mean it's the most encyclopedic negative response (considering the main objection is not the war thing, but the timing of the award being before he's been in office for 2 years) -- Do you have a reliable source that says what the "main objection" is, or is that your opinion?Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (E/C)Hmm, I realize I'm just importing most of my thoughts from here to the article talk. I'll try to keep comments on the article talk from now on, rather than fork them. (Including my response to your last point). -- B figura (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

David A Kaiser page, why I am re-editing a lot
Sorry for the constant revising... I was adapting it to what would be useful, I thought.

I'm simply trying to create a page so I no longer get emails meant for David I Kaiser and David E Kaiser, both people I have corresponded to and who have extensive publications like myself, but on different topics. I am a neuroscientist, one is a historian, the other a cosmologist.

I suggest something like 100,000 links on Google or 1,000 on Google Scholar for scholars should be a good criteria for "notability" on Wiki. That's a reasonable standard. I have 540,000 google links and 8,400 google scholar links on my work.

I recently got an email meant for David E Kaiser, for instance, and called the sender up in Washington State and it was a unique experience for both of us, figuring out what was going on.... A David Kaiser disambiguation page, with branches for each one, would be helpful. I could also write the David I Kaiser page as I know his career -- we were both at AAAS once.

-David Kaiser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelimbic (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Several things. You or your journal may be notable, but that doesn't mean that you should be the one writing the article (and I'd strongly recommend writing one for the other David if you know him). There's a reason we have WP:AUTOBIO -- pages written by people with a conflict of interest tend to get biased. And regarding notability, we don't really use google counts (see WP:GHITS). The relevant standard for academics would be WP:PROF. (Not that I'm not suggesting you don't meet such criteria, just that google isn't the way to go).


 * Now, if all that seems a bit harsh, please understand that when someone comes out of nowhere and starts writing COI articles, it causes many wikipedians alarm bells to go off (since close to half of new articles fall under No one cares about your garage band, WP:SOAP, or something similar). This probably wasn't helped by your marking many of edits as minor (which is considered bad etiquette at least least and an attempt to hide one's edits at worst) or the removal of templates without explanation. This then makes it harder for useful articles to get written as many people's hackles get put up, and less gets done all around. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes, like ~ so. (it'll put down your username and datestamp) Thanks. -- B figura (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Creating pages like this one don't give me a lot of confidence in Freelimbic's credibility or professionalism either. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit, that one did motivate me to start a listing on the fringe science noticeboard. (Although since we already had Human suit, I just redirected the article, rather than have two of them). -- B figura (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

David Kaiser page - Academic notability, criteria 8
Yay! I meet your criteria "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area." We use the term Senior Editor for the Journal of Neurotherapy, but it's the same thing as EIC. This journal is the largest one in this field, 13 years and growing, published by a company around since 1798, Taylor and Francis in Philly. The field of neurotherapy includes ~8,000 clinicians and scientists worldwide and has a publication history dating back to 1960s, including journals such as Science, Epilepsia, General Archives of Psychiatry, and others.

-David K —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelimbic (talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles Dickens AN/I
I had given link to your charges/views before I started. Check out at the top. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. But since you responded point by point, I thought it might be helpful for people to see what you were referring to, rather than jump back and forth between pages. -- B figura (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

David Kaiser article
You set up criteria for inclusion, and I met them as primary editor of a major journal in my field. This field is larger than many behavioral science fields, with about 8,000 to 10,000 practitioners worldwide. If you delete the item, you break your own set of rules and make Wikipedia an elaborate form of fiction or hoax.

As for my contributions to the journal, which your partners discussed, I contributed 42 articles to the journal, many editorials, but many peer reviewed publications, around a dozen. But I've editing a 100 or so articles that entered print. This is not part of your criteria, but your partners thought it relevant (which it isn't). Be a professional and act honestly and ethically.

-David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelimbic (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi David. I think I need to explain several things. First, I didn't nominate the article for deletion, I merely thought that you might be interested in knowing that the deletion discussion was taking place (since the person who did the nomination didn't notify you). Second, you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. I don't have "partners", or have my own criteria for notability. The community as a whole decides what the various criteria are, then each individual editor applies them using his or her own best judgement. (Although in this case, most of the editors, myself included, seem to agree with DGG's assessment of the article). And third, I think it's a bit rich of you to lecture me on ethics after you chose to ignore our policies on WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. In any event, if you want to comment, you're free to join the deletion discussion. -- B figura  (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)