User talk:IntoThinAir/Archive 9

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Frank DeStefano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Intussusception


 * H. Hugh Fudenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Rockefeller Institute


 * Michael Pichichero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Brighton, NY

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bios
I'm quite impressed by your careful work on bios. However, they're sometimes formatted in a way which makes them relatively difficult to read online. People reading WP usually expect a very brief lede paragraph, followed by clearly indicated sections on the person's life and career, each of them if extensive usually divided into paragraphs of 2 or 3 sentences corresponding to phases of their life and work.

I've rewritten some of your bios accordingly. You might want to look at what I've done at Marc Morano and Joseph Bast. I can't force you to use this style, but I hope you can be persuaded to see the advantages. To some extent it's an accessibility issue: remember that many people nowadays read WP on portable devices--even smartphones--and long sections are particularly unwieldy on such small screens.

If you do agree with me, you might want to look at some of your others.  DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. I will keep that in mind in the future. Jinkinson (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of H. Hugh Fudenberg
Hello! Your submission of H. Hugh Fudenberg at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —John Cline (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC) == Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher Shaw (neuroscientist) (September 6) ==  Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Medical veritas board etc
I have to say that, in my opinion, you are creating pages and categories that relate to unnoteworthy subjects. A category of "member of the medical veritas editorial board" is an example. I think you should take the time to remove this category. It simply cannot be that an encyclopedia lists connections of people in this way. We would end up with lists of people who live in the same street, or who went to Kenya for their vacation. Or individuals would have hundreds, or thousands, of categories after their name. The journal itself is of no note. Similarly, you have listed conferences by an anti-vaccine fringe group. Are we now to start lists of conferences of thousands or tens of thousands of organizations.

In my view, there is plenty to do already without introducing a whole new universe of fringe obsessions. I'm tempted to put a lot of this stuff up for deletion, but I think it would be better if you voluntarily focussed on encyclopedic topics. Just my opinion, but previous responses above suggest that I'm not alone in raising worries with you. Bluehotel (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right about that category. To this end I have nominated the category about medical veritas for speedy deletion. And just for the record I do not like the National Vaccine Information Center any more than you do. I do, however, think that their conferences are notable given that many well known cranks/quacks have attended them. Jinkinson (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Josh Willis


A tag has been placed on Josh Willis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fiddle  Faddle  19:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as anyone can write an article here, anyone can try to delete one, whether or not they understand the criteria. This happens especially for articles on people who work on  his sort of subject. There's no way of avoiding it, but there are many of us who will help you. Let me know on my talk p. if it does get sent to afd . DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Jinkinson (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)