User talk:Dennette/sandbox

User:Dennette/sandbox
None of the sources is a reliable source, as they're either primary sources or have nothing to do with you yourself. You need sources where somebody else discusses you and your work. These sources can be used to explain what it is that you're talking about, but you need multiple sources written by somebody else whose work is considered reliable (a book published by a reputable publisher, a magazine article, a newspaper article). Corvus cornix talk  17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... how about this one:""
 * It strikes me as quite the same thing as this citation for :""
 * OTOH, I backed that one up (along with several others) with the help of a fellow Mensan at the Library of Congress. :-) &mdash;Dennette (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Queries: (a) I'll admit that Review Centre is not a reliable source (although it does pass casual muster since it is notable enough to have an Wikipedia article), but do you mean that Ebony and BYTE are not WP:RS, or that they are being used as primary sources? (b) I can see where the BYTE reference is a PS, but is the Ebony reference PS because it is an interview? (This is the kind of thing that I'm trying to understand.) (c) Both my Ebony reference and Asia's Mensa Bulletin reference are for printed publications, and the scanned images of the pages are simply for "cursory" reference, since they can be verified at a library, i.e., we're not citing the URL for the image files, we're citing the publication and linking a scanned copy of it for visual confirmation ... that's all kosher, correct? (d) Are there any particular problems or advantages with the images being on private websites rather than in WikiCommons, or some such, e.g., no copyright issues if they are hosted Some Other Place? &mdash;Dennette (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * There are some tone and NPOV issues in the lead
 * Comment: Please elaborate ... this is what I'm trying to learn. &mdash;Dennette 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The handshake and photograph stuff is unencyclopedic
 * Comment: Let's leave that one alone for the time being ... I know that it doesn't qualify as a notability issue, but I'm playing with an idea about documenting assertions/claims ... it goes back to a revert-war with another editor over the mention of a subject in another subject's memoirs in an attempt to bootstrap notability ... I'm thinking of using it as an example of what NOT to do, no matter how "well referenced" it may be. &mdash;Dennette 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove "making Dennette a single-name Internet celebrity."
 * Comment: Isn't that a claim of notability, or is it just a claim of notoriety? How does one document "celebrity", which is part of the "indication of importance/significance" of the subject? &mdash;Dennette 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove "was a pioneering mercenary in the Information Revolution." and replace with a more neutral description (pioneering software imagineer?)
 * Comment: Thnx ... I never would have thought of that as a POV issue. &mdash;Dennette 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reword "Astronomical computing still provides a recreational outlet for him;"
 * Query: OK, I'm, like, Totally Clueless about what's wrong with that sentence ... is it because it's a "present tense" description of the subject, i.e., "still provides"? &mdash;Dennette 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want, I can make some changes to the article. I just listed a few here, but I'm sure there are other things that can be fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thnx, Nishkid64 ... please make your proposed changes just as if this were in Article space.


 * The whole point of this exercise is for me to learn ... I don't ever expect to satisfy the WP:BIO requirements, but I do hope to get a better handle on the line between "vanity/cruft" and "encyclopedic content", as well as some of the subtleties of primary sources.  &mdash;Dennette (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving?

 * copied from User talk:Dennette --Dennette (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your comments on the sandbox talk page. I was about to comment, but I saw your userpage first. Why are you leaving Wikipedia? :( Nishkid64 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I kinda thought that I give up explained it pretty well ... actually, I haven't been able to kick this habit completely, so I just do anon WikiGnome stuff when I need a "fix". -) --Dennette (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet celebrity

 * copied from User talk:Dennette --Dennette (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I follow. From my understanding, it seems your asking how to appropriately correct ref #8 on your bio. Is that correct? Nishkid64 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's exactly what I meant ... I'd like to move that up to the opening paragraph as an "assertion of notability". :-) I guess List of Internet phenomena is what I was thinking about, so I'd like to "claim" membership in that group. --Dennette (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I think that "Dennette is a single-name Internet phenomena.[8]" is what I was looking for ... shouldn't I move that to the introduction? --Dennette (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the sentence to the first paragraph, and added a footnote for the assertion, "'one of the Internet's oldest and longest running blogs'" OTOH, I guess it's age/creation date is sufficient. --Dennette (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that would belong in the lead. The sentence makes a clear assertion of notability. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles
Hmmm ... I just discovered this list, and looking at some of the articles, I guess I might qualify. :-) --Dennette (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've had a few days to think about it, and I guess it could be pruned from Biography to the end, so that #6 would be the final footnote ... OTOH, I'd really like to be able to keep references 7-12, even though most are primary sources ... maybe that's where vanity is clouding my judgment? &mdash; Dennette (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it seems that Ebony magazine is the only real reference that covers biographical details of your life. Besides that, I don't think there are any other third-party, independent sources that cover your life. The BYTE source is a good reference for your work, but other than that, I don't think your article could make the mainspace. :( Nishkid64 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well ... it was fun to stroke my ego for a few days, anyway ... at least now I've got something that I can point to and say, "See how much this subject has done, and they still don't make the grade!" :-) &mdash; Dennette (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The first to do something …
Well, I'm still not notable as defined by WP:GNG, but I have done things that no one else has done, or at least, was the first to do it …


 * I created IGESPEEK™, the first interactive browser for IGES files, and the first Windows and Linux based plug-in application to support IGES files as a MIME type.
 * I created IGESGUMP™, and released it as freeware with support for 3D part rotation using Java for operating system and Web browser independence.
 * I managed the first American National standard for electronic publishing that was documented using itself.

Now, if I could get Someone Else to write and publish stories about those achievements, then maybe I can satisfy WP:GNG. :-)

&mdash; Dennette (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)