User talk:Cmagha

Nomination of Aaron Raitiere for deletion
The article Aaron Raitiere, was adjudicated: Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere. The petitioner was Racepacket on October 26, 2010. It was not deleted.

Nomination of Peter Shalvoy for deletion
The article Peter Shalvoy was adjudicated at Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy based on a petition filed by Racepacket on October 26, 2010. It was not deleted.

Nomination of Ryan Neil Falcone for deletion
The article Ryan Neil Falcone was adjudicated at Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone, based on a petition by [User:Racepacket|Racepacket]] filed on October 26, 2010. It was deleted; it will be restored with fresh documentation later.

Fresh start
In response to your comments at ANI, I want to assure you that I assume you are acting in good faith and that I am not trying to "bully" you or deter you from contributing to Wikipedia. However, I suggest that you step back and reassess your goals for contributing to Wikipedia and the methods you are using to do so. Wikipedia is not a litigation with winners and losers, it is a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia. (In some ways it is analogous to a social fraternity which has the goal of educating students through forging a sense of brotherhood. If a brother becomes too litigious, he ultimately hinders the brotherhood and character development.)  Unlike Facebook or Myspace, not everyone is entitled to a Wikipedia article. If you want to control the material, put it on another website, because Wikipedia articles get edited repeatedly, and unflattering perspectives frequently get added.

If you are particularly close to a topic, it is best if you leave it to others to avoid a conflict of interest. If you personally know Raitiere, Shalvoy or Falcone, leave Wikipedia's coverage of those people to someone else. If they are as famous as you think they are, someone will eventually come along and write articles. Also, please consider people's right to privacy and right to control the use of their names/images to "endorse" a third party. I could see how the estate of John F. Kennedy, Jr. could be troubled by any group appropriating his name and reputation to burnish the group. Particularly, if the only connection between the group and Kennedy was a single chance encounter while he was young.

Finally, I generally advise lawyers to avoid writting about themselves, their workplace, or their clients. It is problematic on many levels with both concerns about client confidences, conflicting duties to clients and to the employer as well as complex duties to Wikipedia as one of its editors. Even with all of these restrictions, there is much work left to be done which you will find of great interest. For example, instead of writing about the Irving, write about the other literary societies, or the history of the Cornell Glee Club. How about writing articles on Supreme Court cases other than Fitzgerald v. Nixon? How about applying your many talents to reviewing articles that have been nominated for Good Article or Peer Review?

Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

andy (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the reasons given were that there was no claim of importance made, and that it was promotional. I did not support the promotional delete, but the the no claim of importance was enough for a speedy delete. It may be possible for you to fix it up if there is a reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. You can ask for the article to be userfied, that is put at User:Cmagha/John A. Ware. Then you can improve it to make it have the appropriate content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article has been restored to User:Cmagha/John A. Ware. Please try to make this non promotional, and explain why this should be in the encyclopedia by an explanation of the topic's importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Cmagha/John A. Ware
Hi, User:Cmagha/John A. Ware looks to be pretty non promotional, but it may not apss the notability requirements. Hopefully you can find independent reliable references that have a substantial amount on the topic. A directory that list every one of a kind does not prove notability, because just by exiting he would get a listing. But that does not rult out other independent sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Happening to see this, let me offer some advice as another experienced editor here,Just as Graeme says, the article will have difficulty because of the lack of independent sources. At present, the only 3rd party source in the DeMarco interview, and as editor of asja, she does a number of such profiles. But it's clear not every agent gets one, so I think it could be used. You really need another, and I'm aware how hard it is to find sources for editors, agents, and anyone else in publishing--except the authors. The list of books  he is responsible for would help a little, if limited to the authors who have Wikipedia articles--at the present, only Krakauer and Jacobs have articles, though Niven could certainly justify one, and possibly Hurowitz and Nathanson also. If any of the books have won prizes, this should be given with a reference to a third party source for the prize. But on one point I disagree with Graeme, the section on "Boutique Theory" is self-advertisement and must go   DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Counselor
Grand Tutnum perhaps, but not counselor. Thanks for the request to review the IG.--S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Edward B. Bunn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unknown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Georegetown presidents
Hey, I just wanted to say how impressed I am with your work on the articles on Georgetown University presidents. Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything I can help out with! Thanks again!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 19:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a current law Hoya, so let me know if you need anything I have access to.  MBisanz  talk 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of William D. Carmichael for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William D. Carmichael is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/William D. Carmichael until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:CU Places West Campus Irving Cut.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:CU Places West Campus Irving Cut.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --TheImaCow (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Epoch Times reference at Daniel P. Meyer
Hi. Please do not use the Epoch Times as you did at Daniel P. Meyer. It is not a reliable source. See WP:EPOCHTIMES. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Your edit to Daniel P. Meyer has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa; I just obtained permission for use of this material and have sent it in.

Cmagha, are you being paid for your work on the Daniel P. Meyer article? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No Robby.is.on, not paid for any Wikipedia editing; looking for more materials. This article was getting old, and there was a lot more new material out there to include.

Wily Goat
Hello. Some years back you added an image at Commons of File:Arms_Wily_Goat.png. Given its prominence at the top of the List of fraternities and sororities at Cornell University I wish to give the engraving more context. --It had no obvious connection to any of the Greeks. But in reviewing it, the File article itself is rather lacking in specifics. Nor can I find a copy of the referenced Cornellian yearbook for 1877-78 online (Hatha Trust has a gap for this issue). I note that neither the issues before nor after that year show this image.

now, I know that the Phi Kappa Psi chapter at Cornell uses the reference, Under the skull and wily goat as perhaps some kind of local byword. While most pages for the fraternity have been scrubbed (due to a regrettable event), I see that the name remains in a line quoted at the bottom of the page. Is it ritualistic? Does its significance extend beyond Cornell, or beyond this Phi Psi chapter?

I placed a short (temporary?) caption under the photo on the Greek list page, but this can be updated if further context emerges. You might be the one to clarify this. Would you assist?

By the way, you are welcome to participate in the Fraternity and Sorority Project, which continues to create and police good content. Jax MN (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Under the Skull and Wily Goat
Hello. Hope those brackets "call" you to this page; the phrase appears in the early minutes of the New York Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi at Cornell, which is far from "gone"; there are 1200 of us (I am a Cornellian and a Phi Psi). The phrase just shows up, with no explanation. It is not part of the Phi Psi National Ritual as it is constituted now (may have been part of the older, pre-1900 ritual). Orally, the alumni of the 1930s told me the Skull stood for Victorian era death (they were preoccupied with it) and the Goat, for Bock Beer, of all things. The Chapter went to the Bock Beer tapping (first beer of the season) at Newfield, New York, every April. Road trip every year (by carriage or train) until the turn of the century. Cmagha (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figured you were a Phi Psi.  I've read a couple of Ithaca news reports about the recent ban, and grieve with you and the boys about the situation.  I don't want to comment too much publicly here. I'm an experienced advisor to my own chapter, and simply, young people make mistakes.  I hope the family finds peace, and absolutely do not want to lose your fine old chapter.  I was a Phi Sigma Kappa at Minnesota; another of our oldest and iconic chapters, as is our Cornell chapter.  I have family that went to Yale, but I stayed in my own state.


 * Several years ago I did an extensive re-write and expansion of the List of Cornell chapters on Wikipedia, and have been active editing many other pages. When writing it I noted your placement of the Wily Goat graphic on the page. Cornell has always been a favorite, though I didn't attend there. Slightly mysterious I'd thought then, and now, when I chanced upon it again.  I note that the yearbook referenced 1877-78, which happens to be missing from the Hatha Trust online archive.  So there wasn't anything more to it?  No whispered connection to the Greeks?  Or Phi Psi? Neither of those symbols are etched into an old building there, are they?


 * Too bad... As a matter of symbolism, the skull didn't formerly have as much of an aspect of horror as it does today.  It was more comforting, in a way, centuries ago.  It is classically a symbol of mortality and self-reflection.


 * As to the chapter, do y'all have any plan for a return? Will the group be operating sub rosa for awhile?  Jax MN (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)