User talk:Dalecorey

You left your comments in the right place, I intended to watch that site, but failed to, so you did exactly the right thing by prompting me at my talk page. I'm out of town at the moment, and just checking in; I will be back home tomorrow and will look at your comments in more detail. Don't hesitate to poke me if you don't hear anything by tomorrow evening; sorry I can't look at it right now, but I can't. (There's a chance I'll get a free moment late this afternoon, but only a chance.)-- SPhilbrick  T  19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Guttman comments
To be honest, I've been avoiding commenting on the Guttman article because I still see problems. I was honest when I said it had greatly improved, but I am concerned that if moved into main space now it might get proposed for deletion.

So let me outline areas of concerns, and let you decide how to address them. Once you've addressed as many as you can, make sure you save a copy in case it gets deleted, then move it into main space (or ask me to if you don't know how). If it gets deleted, we can look at the reasons, and see what else to do.

The main concern is that Wikipedia prides itself on article written from a Neutral Point of View. If you poke around, you'll find that we literally have thousands of rules, requirements, and guidelines, but NPOV is one of the big ones - it is part of the Five pillars. The article still reads as if were written by someone interested in promoting the ideas of Guttman. That's the job of a PR agent, but WP tries to avoids that. That's why, while references to material written by Guttman are acceptable, they can come across as self-serving, so they cannot be the sole source of information. That's why the Time reference is helpful, it is written by someone whose job is not to promote Guttman, but to inform. Having said all that. it isn't easy to point to a phrase and suggest a specific alteration, it's a sense that comes form reading the whole piece.

Let's move on to more actionable items. While I cannot find the specific guideline, good WP style includes well-written prose. It should have a logical flow. The Professional Accomplishments section reads more like a list than an organized biography. It contains nine paragraphs, many of which are a single sentence. Read a typical bio listed at Good articles or Featured articles to see the difference. You do NOT have to meet the GA or FA standards, most article do not, but you can see a clear difference.

The basic ideas section is a significant portion of the article, and it is solely derived from his writings. It is not inconceivable that another editor might suggest striking the whole section. The section would be much better if you could find independent people talking about these ideas. Wikipedia is, by design a tertiary source. We do not write about things we personally know about, we want to summarize and organize what independent people have written about a subject. There's a little of that, but too little.

Sorry, this may across as harsh, and there's no doubt we could find articles that do not meet the standards I suggest, but I want you to know what concerns others may have.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Dalecorey/draft Howard M. Guttman
I've taken a look at User:Dalecorey/draft Howard M. Guttman.

It has definitely improved. However, there is still a concern in my mind that some editors will feel it comes across as too promotional. I'm trying to find specific recommendations, but not finding the simple solutions that would ensure that it is acceptable. My main concern is that the basic ideas section doesn't show any evidence that it is the summarization of independent observers. However, that is not easily remedied if such sources don't exist.

I'll list a couple minor suggestions, then I think you should make sure you keep a copy, and try going live. If it does get tagged, I can help you ask the reviewers for specific suggestions.

Issues worth addressing:


 * You say "Guttman authored more than 35 articles on New Jersey history". "more than" is classic resume language, and is a red flag.
 * Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences is formed as an embedded link, would be better as a proper reference. I think you now know how to do that, ask if you aren't sure.
 * Same for Johnson & Johnson’s consumer sector
 * "Top Business Books of 2008 by Soundview Executive Book Summaries" The award helps notability, but it is not referenced.
 * "Selected articles by and interviews...". The word "selected" is also traditional resume wording. I suggest just removing it.
 * You quote "“in my garage,” and “horizontal, high-performance organizations,” but you don't include a reference for those quotes.--  SPhilbrick  T  13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding a comment
When you add a comment to someone's talk page, please click on the "new section" tab at the top of the page. This will ensure that the message has it's own section, with a section heading.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dale, I realize you are new, but every time you add a comment to my talk page, you do it wrong, and I have to clean it up. Please learn how to do it correctly, if you aren't sure how, ask me here, and I'll explain in detail.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Howard M. Guttman has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Difu Wu (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you figured out how to move it, congrats. Hope it sticks. However, in what I assume was an intention to cleanup, you blanked the talk page. That should not be done, as we want to keep a record. Talk pages can be archived, but not blanked. However, I understand that many of the point on that page relate to its status as a draft - I'll do something about it.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I collapsed the material relating to the time it was a draft, that way, people can find it if they want to, while talk page comments relating to its status in main space will be most prominent.

Talkback

 * Oh, I went ahead and added a category.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Howard guttman large800.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Howard guttman large800.jpg, which you've sourced to Jason Sheldon, photographer. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ron h jones (Talk) 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)