User talk:LaMona/Archive 1

Authority Control Integration
Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your comments on the proposal. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any feedback gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hewey and Louie
Hi! I saw your fix at Dewey Decimal Classification, for which, thank you! The anon [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey_Decimal_Classification&diff=562832663&oldid=562817883 also changed] "rerums" to "rerume", and "pamflets" to "pamphlets" - should either or both of those, also be reverted? Cheers. –Quiddity (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All of those are quotes, using Dewey's odd spelling. In fact, it gets odder as time goes on. I have no idea what a "rerume" or "rerum" is, but it is listed as part of the title. "Pamflets" is his reformed spelling. For example, take a look at | DDC 19 in Google Books. The spelling is absolutely incredible.
 * NB - I'm working up a highly revised DDC page in my sandbox. I'll try to get the outline fixed soon.

AFD of List of Dewey Decimal classes
I have put in a deletion request for List of Dewey Decimal classes as it appears to be a copyright violation. I'm notifying you as you have either made multiple edits to the article in the past year and/or on the talk page for that article and Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

new user rights
Hi LaMona - I just granted you a bunch of new user rights that you may find useful for various purposes (including exceeding the 6 account limit at outreach events.) I can answer any questions you have about them in tomorrow in person, but in the mean time, if you see any shiny new buttons, please make sure you know what they do before you use them ;) Best wishes, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review for Dewey Decimal Classification
I've listed the DDC article for a GA review here, under the "Miscellaneous" category. Because of the backlog, it might take a few weeks for someone to review it. S Pat  talk 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I suppose it could go in history, but maybe it's good that it's in a category with only a few items. It might catch someone's eye. LaMona (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We did it! Mostly thanks to your great job on collecting stuff from references :)  S Pat   talk 02:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A Half Million Award for you!
I also gave one of these to SPat because it seems that you two collaborated to get this article to GA. Great job! Bobnorwal (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bobnorwal! It was well worth the 6 months and hundreds of pages of reading. Wikipedia is the best education ever! 50.1.84.120 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Oops! wasn't logged in. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

27th April event
Hi Karen, thanks for taking the lead at the training session yesterday, you did a really good job! Please let me know if you ever want some assistance at future editing events, I would love to come along and help where I can. :) Julia\talk  18:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Julia. Thanks to you for being there and helping out. I plan to do some more edit-a-thons in Berkeley, and I announce them on the wikimedia-sf list. I hadn't known I was doing a training session, so that was all improv! Gotta be ready for anything and everything. :-) LaMona (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability of schools
When you are considering whether a particular school is notable, you may want to refer to Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, sometimes abbreviated as WP:OUTCOMES Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eastmain It's really not clear to me. The page says that schools must follow notability guidelines: "The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)."

WP:ORG says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The WP:OUTCOMES#Schools says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." However, it doesn't say whether that's a good thing or not. So my question is: should they be held to the standard of notable organizations, as WP:ORG says? I can't imagine why one would want to include them if they are not notable. And it says "Most..." - Very unclear, especially as to motivation. LaMona (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eastmain Compare the article to these articles for schools:
 * * Albany High School
 * * Ventura High School
 * * Richmond High School
 * I'm not saying that these are perfect, but there is content that captures the importance of the school in the community. Perhaps that's what is needed. LaMona (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason for automatically keeping secondary schools (even without references) is that the references almost certainly exist, even if they are not available online. The same principle applies for professional athletes. In other words, we know that significant coverage exists; in some cases, we just haven't found it yet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eastmain As I noted on the AfD page, there are plenty of articles online about this particular school. It has been a stub for 7 years. If you wish to upgrade the article, there is plenty of opportunity. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Myrtle Young
Hi. Just a reminder about redoing the Young article (you hit an edit conflict first time), so that I can move towards withdrawing the AFD nomination. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quis separabit? DONE! LaMona (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II AfD
Please take a look at my comment at the AfD. Regarding outdated articles, here is PowerBook 100. You may perhaps see the analogue to a Radio show within a specific Radio station. Lets say there is an article about a notable Radio station. In the article, a notable radio show is being mentioned. The radio show could be notable even in 1975, the time-frame of notability is irrelevant for our purposes. So, if any editor would like to create a separate article about the radio show it would be justified given that inclusion of that information on the main article would make it too long and that the radio show is notable on its own. I did the same for the article about the boxer Vasyl Lomachenko - with creating a separate article about one of his fights - Orlando Salido vs. Vasyl_Lomachenko. You may also note, that the article was reviewed by an experienced editor about the same time as I posted it. I was concerned if the article may sound promotional, and I was given opinion that it is not. Dmatteng (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied at AfD . LaMona (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Materialization
What would be your opinion about this sentence in the lead: "The existence of materialization has not been confirmed by laboratory experiments"? Since the book is not accessible, pp.122-130 can not be checked whether or not that statement is backed by the citation. This was a concern of another user also, while discussing now removed OR material in the article. Logos (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Logos, I'm not bothered by that. The guidelines allow citations that can't be verified online. However, I happen to have read that book, and although I don't have a copy on hand, it sounds very likely that Roach did cover that, although I couldn't attest to whether she was referring to materialization or other phenomena. The entire book was about scientific studies of paranormal claims. (Actually, it's an excellent and fun read - highly recommend it.) LaMona (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm quite comfortable with such a statement, provided that that was exactly what the book has in it, otherwise it falls under synth. It became almost a tradition to cite sources in a synthy way. Logos (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Bel lavoro!
Your analysis of sources and verification here is really quite excellent. Very nicely done.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IP user comment
Thank you, but I must respectfully disagree with your position: 1. I have requested a deletion of this page before. 2. Under State Control? Do you know how many organizations in the United States are considered academic and are private? 3. Board of Directors are not listed. I cannot find a rule on Wikipedia that it is a requirement for a website to list all board of directors and members to the Academy. 4. The Academy is listed and endorsed by several accredited training organizations. ADA CERP provider is issued by the Extraction Academy and therefore not listed in the ADA CERP. Please take a closer look before you make these kind of statements: a. Tribune Group is an ADA CERP Recognized Provider. ADA CERP is a service of the American Dental Association to assist dental professionals in identifying quality providers of continuing dental education. ADA CERP does not approve or endorse individual courses or instructors, nor does it imply acceptance of credit hours by boards of dentistry. b. Biologix Solutions LLC is designated as an Approved PACE Program Provider by the Academy of General Dentistry. The formal continuing dental education programs of this program provider are accepted by AGD for Fellowship, Mastership, and membership maintenance credit. Approval does not imply acceptance by a state or provincial board of dentistry or AGD endorsement. 5. The Website you are referencing, is one of the many sponsors of the Academy, promoting peer to peer collaboration. Are you contending that Universities and Academic institutions from around the world don’t accept sponsorship funds for expansion, operating expense, and international education? 6. What do you mean with the statement that "it does not look good?" What does not look good? It does not look good to educate others? It does not good look good to be a faculty member? It does not look good to accept sponsorship funds from other legitimate organizations? It does not look good to be involved with the United States EB-5 program? It does not look good to offer a government sponsored program by third parties? What does this statement mean? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.213.19 (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

South Beach Diet
Hi there, LaMona. It's been a little while since I last joined the South Beach Diet discussion page, however I've just returned this afternoon with two messages. The first is an answer to your last reply, and the second is an explanation of the problems I see in the History and theory section. Even if there is not consensus now for the draft I have suggested, I think it should be easy enough to find agreement that the current section has serious problems. To that end, I hope you'll come back to the discussion, and I will reach out to others as well.

One more note: sometimes in the past you have replied to my comments in between my paragraphs, which has had the effect of separating my words from the signature which makes it clear those words are mine. If such a sub-conversation goes on at any length, it can be difficult to connect an earlier part of my comment from the latter. I think the best thing is just to reply following my signature, so if you will do that in the future I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Danny Sebright AfD
Hi LaMona. I wanted to bring your attention back the Danny Sebright page, where I've addressed your concerns from 22 October and improved upon the article. I believe it now meets notability requirements and I recommend you revise your original suggestion to Keep. Cheers! Sanjaya15 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Sanjaya15
 * Sanjaya15 - I appreciate the effort you have put into this. The article is now well-written and makes more sense. However, I still don't see anything that would support notability as defined for WP. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Professional help needed.
Hello. I saw you're a librarian. Can you help me save Shaikh Muhibullah Allahabadi from possible deletion? Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why should I have a User Name? I can look for him in books, but I don't have access to a good library that would cover that period of Indian history. Do you know about the online library references services? For example, Library of Congress has such a service, with an Asian speciality (I assume India is covered there) . You should also look for similar services in any university or research libraries in your area. If they locate books, you can then use those books for the research. The reason this might work best is that the information is going to be in books, so it won't be available online. I'll do what I can, but getting to a strong research library, either physically or virtually, is going to be your best bet. If you can't do it in time, WP:USERFY the article, which will give you more time to do the research. LaMona (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Santosh Mehrotra
Dear LaMona, I see on your contribution to the Afd for the little article on Santosh Mehrotra you raise a few issues. I am trying to save the article as I beleive him to be notable even though the original article was over promotional and perhaps autobotographical. With respect to the contents of the edited book with Jolly - the contents page can be found here at the OUP site:http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198296577.do

I am not sure why you were unable to find a record of the reviews in the Economic Journal. The EJs review is listed here (which I think should work for those without access): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0297.00446/abstract

I think you also said you could not find the review in the Journal of Educational Development but this was list as International Journal of Educational Development. And this is listed here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07380593/22/1

I have added another book (sole authored) and multiple independent reviews which would seem to me to allow a pass of WP:Author.

I hope it is OK to ask you to have another look and perhaps modify your contribution to the AFd is you think it justified as I think an implication of your contribution to the AFD might be that as the reviews could not be found, there might be some problem with them.

Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Msrasnw, I will look at these. It is possible that Wiley does not index its reviews, but a search on the title of the book got me zero in the EJ site. I'm wondering why you consider him to be notable. If you could articulate that, then we could look for evidence of that notability. Leaning on the book alone is not going to be enough, since many, many people write books. So there has to be something "special" about him, which isn't appearing in the article. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonathan MacDonald
Hey LaMona, I see you around at AfD often lately—thanks for doing what you do. Noticed that you left a comment on the MacDonald AfD that wasn't very welcoming for the new user. I know it's frustrating to see a new user dig a deeper hole while making more work for everyone else, but it might be better to contact the user with a personal talk page message with guidance rather than responding with WP shortcuts and indignation at the AfD, which likely won't serve them as well as you may think at the time czar ⨹   18:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that, and regretted it, which is why I went back and tried to fix some of the references as an example of what could be done. But it had already been said. I guess bad refs get me all emotional. ;-) Thx. LaMona (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Help on Deletion Review?
Hi LaMona. I see you commented on the deletion of the page for Computer Economics. Could you review the material I submitted for consideration on the firm's notability? ==Deletion review for Computer Economics== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Computer Economics. Thanks in advance. Fscavo (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Fat quarter
I was interested in your comment on this at the AfD and have created a new section Yard! Pam D  11:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pam, great, thanks. I added a wiki-link to Patchwork quilt. I think that article could be expanded to have more information about particular quilting styles. LaMona (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment on draft page for Analytica
Hi LaMona Thank you for your feedback and note on the Company Page ANALYTICA. I had reviewed the COI prior to posting, so was surprised by the comment as it had not been flagged before as an issue by other reviewers and I had followed policy as I understood it.


 * Not all reviewers look at the history when reviewing a page. I do because I often want to gauge the level and breadth of experience of the editor, since it helps me know what advice to give. LaMona (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One note on the disambiguation, my apologies I thought that this is what was required.


 * While adding the company name to the disambiguation page will be helpful, making this page the default link from Analytica (disambiguation) could be controversial. That should be discussed on the talk page for the disambiguation. LaMona (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see points below on page and COI:

1. transparent about your conflict of interest. - Noted that I have worked at the company to be completely transparent
 * Hi, Mark. Your user page does not have a COI statement, and that' s where people will look. I'm not sure where you noted your involvement with the company, but the user page is the normal place. Your user page is essentially blank, other than your name. You should say for sure that you do work for the company, and possibly what your position is there. LaMona (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

2. Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. - I have contributed to various articles, as with this one and this organization is not a client and I have not been paid to post
 * Mark, that you work for the company meets the "your organization" statement there. Also, the contributions for your user name includes only one other edit beyond this page. You may have come in with an IP address or a different user name, but this is what shows today. LaMona (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space. - I started this page in my talk section
 * That means the talk page for the article. The article today has no talk page. It would be good to create one, and add your COI information to it. LaMona (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

4. Your role is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell. - Believe it is impartial, with various sources, but if changes should be made please let me know and I will try to account for them or have others get involved in the article 5. Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - Numerous, significant and independent reliable sources utilized only 6. State facts and statistics; don't be vague or general. - stated just facts 7. Take time to get sources and policy right. - have spent time verifying and collecting information 8. Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your suggestions. - Let me know if any feedback or suggestions that should be incorporated  and I will ask others to get involved
 * Yes, you should do this on the talk page for the article, not by asking fellow co-workers to contribute. You can also ask for help through the AfC process. ____

9. Work with us and we'll work with you. - Let me know any feedback to incorporate into an update 10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. - Let me know if anything else needed 69.138.89.45 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Mark @ ANALYTICA 69.138.89.45 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

14:31:06, 6 January 2015 review of submission by Claracalderwood
Hi LaMona, just to say thank you very much for being so kind as to take the time to review my submission. I have removed the references to blogs, added more about her as a person and used better references (including the one you suggested). Is this the kind of thing you had in mind? CClaracalderwood (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Claracalderwood (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

22:19:22, 14 January 2015 review of submission by Efrain Ib
Hello, Could you please tell what specifically needs more credible links in my entry? Thank you!!! :)

Efrain Ib (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Efrain Ib - I turn the question back to you: The references show that the organization exists, and that it does what it was intended to do, which is to foster local business. What makes this organization encyclopedic? Has it invented something new? Done something few other such organizations have done? Does it have importance outside of the local area, e.g. to a world-wide English-reading audience? (Generally speaking, local organizations with only local scope are not considered encyclopedic.) To you, specifically, I ask: why do you think it should have a WP article? What is it that you see in this organization that is of WP character? LaMona (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

13:43:57, 20 January 2015 review of submission by Jaclyn at the IIJ
Dear LaMona,

I was messaged that my article appeared to have a copy write infringement (Josve05a messaged me), however there is an explanation for that and I do not believe the article should be declined.

The link from where Wikipedia believes is copied (http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/06/20140618302124.html) is actually using copied information from one of our (the IIJ's) publications (a fact sheet):

“FACT SHEET Inauguration Fact Sheet: International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law (IIJ) – Malta Below is the text of the Fact Sheet issued by the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law (IIJ) on June 18, 2014.”

Therefore, that text is actually that of the IIJ and is not copied.

As a side note, written materials of the United States Government, such as the US Embassy, are not copyrighted to begin with, as your wikipedia entry notes on this subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government

Jaclyn at the IIJ (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jaclyn at the IIJ Jaclyn, if the text is from your site, you need to add a clear license on your site that allows this kind of re-use of your material. Using a Creative Commons open license is generally enough. But even if it is your own text, WP is not really supposed to be a copy of what's already on the web -- there's not much value in that. The audience for WP will be different from the audience at your site. Also note that anyone can edit WP so your article will not remain the same.


 * Another issue is that you are creating an article for your own organization. Are you aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy? Here's what one reviewer sends in situations like yours:
 * Are you sure that the organization is notable by WP standards? If so, then it will already have been covered in places like newspapers, magazines, websites (not blogs), etc. If you are trying to make it notable by including it in Wikipedia, that is not in keeping with WP policies. You could send your information to, newspapers, magazines, websites (not blogs), etc., that might be interested in doing an article about your group. Starting out with Wikipedia won't do the job because we're not that kind of "service" or "news agency." We are an encyclopedia. So get your publicity elsewhere and then come back here with evidence of your notability. I hope this helps you.
 * At the moment you have no outside resources about the organization (related government bodies are just doing "business as usual"). You need newspaper or journal articles from reliable sources that have paid attention to your organization to show that it is notable beyond just doing what it does.
 * So you have a number of issues here to resolve. I would say that starting with the sources is #1, because from them you will get information that is different from what is on your organization's own site. If there are no other sources, then your organization, unfortunately, doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion in WP. LaMona (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Corporation Page
Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your feedback! The Boston globe article fully features this business and printed it on the front page of their business section which is why I believe its noteworthy and should be accepted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Ellis 112 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nicole Ellis 112, thanks for getting in touch. First, I want to remind you that on talk pages you have to sign your contributions using four tildes (see bottom of edit box). (That's different to the article pages which get signed automatically - yeah, confusing.) Now to the article. It's great that you have some references with information about the company. Now what you need to do is get that information into the article - what do the articles say about the company? (Obviously you don't copy from the articles, but rephrase the information.) Right now your article is only a few sentences, which is too short to be an article - while references can support notability, the notable information must be in the article. Also, there should be enough information that your article has sections. Look at the articles for some other corporations for ideas. Common sections are "History" "Products" "Awards" "Patents" etc. Use the ones relevant to your subject. There will need to be a lead section that is a few sentences that can be considered a summary of the entire article. LaMona (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for participating in a discussion on a YA book by a woman author with a female protagonist. Participation is power. :)

HullIntegrity (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC) 

Draft: Lindy Hume
Thanks LaMona for your help with this submission - hopefully it's getting in better shape and can be accepted... Grantoneill2010 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:49:43, 4 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Efrain Ib
Efrain Ib (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk regarding Erik Daniel Shein Article
Hello, I am editing on this article("Erik Daniel Shein"), as you told that Davey Award will be purchase, but have you information that Every award have some entry fees, please see the link http://www.daveyawards.com/guidelines/, and I hope now it's clear to you. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishvyas1747 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Manishvyas1747, I wouldn't expect the awards page to be honest -- so I'm deducing this from the fact that they give out hundreds of awards per year (which you can see on their list of awards, which has multiple entries under each letter of the alphabet). I looked at the other two awards, and they were of the same nature. Paying to enter an awards contest that you will win because you entered it is basically like self-publishing -- it does not confer notability. If you wish to show notability for this person, you need to find non-paid awards coming from reliable independent sources. LaMona (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Manishvyas1747 see this article Are the Davey Awards Legit?

20:21:55, 11 February 2015 review of submission by Civitella Mia
Thanks for your feedback, LaMona. There seem to be two parts to your critique; one, that many of the cited sources were inaccessible for you to confirm the referenced content; and two, that it was unclear exactly which content was drawn from the sources. The second aspect had occurred to me, and I thought that perhaps I should revisit the sources for specific quotations and such. I have also been told by other people outside of the Wikipedia community that too many of the cited sources only reference the Civitella Ranieri Foundation, rather than being about the foundation itself. I am committed to improving the content and resubmitting this article, but I don't want to do so until I am confident in the improvements. Thanks for your time! 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Civitella Mia (talk)

Review of submission by Deecee003 re: Hal Awards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HAL_Awards Thanks for the feedback regarding verifiable sources. I have edited the article and added citations from Billboard, BMI and NY Times deecee003

user:Deecee003 Note that the requirement for citations has to do with their quality and not their quantity. The one NYT reference I looked at is merely a page for a name, and says nothing about the person or the awards. I will try to get the time to winnow down the references to only those that are significant. Also, it helps to include more than just the URI for references -- that is, to have the author, title, publication, and dates. That way others can quickly evaluate the references. (Note: four tildes in a row will embed your user name as a signature on your comment. See the first line below the edit box.) LaMona (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:51:43, 25 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kirstinhay
Hello, you declined my page for Trauma Risk Management but it is a recognized subject in its own right and doesn't fit under the area you suggested (there are links to that subject area but that is all). I included a number of verified sources to support the page. I can edit the text in my new page to include appropriate text that can be linked to the existing page if that would be acceptable?

Many thanks

Kirstinhay (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kirstinhay If you wish to create a separate page for your topic, you need to connect it logically to the page that already exists. This is often done by including a short paragraph in the more general page with a link to the page where there is more information. Just below the header for your topic you put "Main article: " followed by the link to the separate article. In the case of your topic, the trick will be to do this elegantly in the existing article. I would suggest not altering the existing article before opening a discussion on the article's talk page about the best way to integrate the two. 142.254.111.19 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:South Beach_Diet".The discussion is about the topic South Beach Diet. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lexalytics Page Deletion
Hey, here's a few articles if/when you decide to get around to stripping down the lexalytics article. Let us know if we can do anything else to help you!

Charleslegros (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona You wrote "It is also a fact that User:Kseldman, the creator of this article, has not edited any other Wikipedia articles." That's not true: if you look far enough back in my edits you will see I have edited two other Wikipedia articles. That's not a reason to assume I'm promoting Randy Sutton. I'm not his PR agent. It's also not a reason to reject an article submission.

Thank you for your other feedback - I am adding additional references to the page as I find them.

Please let me know anything else I need to do.

Kseldman (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I missed those, Kseldman. That was not my reason for rejecting the article, because it isn't a reason. It is something worth noting, though, because it indicates a new user without much WP experience. Articles for creation gets a lot of users who have started their contribution to WP by creating a new article, which is very hard to do before learning the ins and outs of WP style and editing. So knowing that someone is a real "newby" helps us all determine how to advise the person. LaMona (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Andreas_Raab_(2nd_nomination)
Hi LaMona. I just wanted to invite you back to the discussion on Raab. I have resonded but have not heard back from you. When you get a chance could you review the response. Thank you for your participation. Itsmeront (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Discussion is going on regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_2015_North_India_Unseasonal_Rain. Your opinion is invited. सुमित सिंह (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for the help on article: Mary Sojourner. I tried a few more using your template and it worked.

MartyFisk (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC) 

A barnstar for you!

 * JameswoodSK James, you should be able to find the talk page here: Draft_talk:Martha_Brockenbrough. (Note, every article has a tab, next to the article tab, for a talk page. If the tab is red it doesn't exist yet, but you can always create it by clicking on the tab, and anyone can create talk pages.) You won't be able to see the full Booklist articles without an account, but many libraries have accounts to it that you can sign into with your library card.(You DO have a library card, don't you? I mean, EVERYONE should have at least one library card ;-)) (p.s. I'm a librarian) LaMona (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD nomination for Indigo Publications
LaMona, after seeing the number of different AfD's you have commented on, I'm surprised that you have written two different entries with three different bold answers at Articles for deletion/Indigo Publications. See WP:DISCUSSAFD, specifically: "Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one." ) Please chose one answer for your recommendation and combine your explanation in one entry. My suggestion is to put a striketrough for your entire first response, and edit your second response as you see fit. Strikethrough could be used there as well. Thank you. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mnnlaxer, the second one was about the individual journals, and follows an "if" -- if those individual journals are considered part of this AfD, then.... you know, if, then, else? The else is implied: else, ignore this !vote. LaMona (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Clarified the wording, I hope. LaMona (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Cleland Tiffin AfD
Your edit remark said delete, but what you actually wrote was "Comment". Is that what you intended? Msnicki (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, AFAIK the !vote format is flexible and can appear anywhere, but what happens is that I often change my mind as I work through the comment. I can change that if it bothers you. LaMona (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, no, I wasn't trying to suggest what you should do nor am I bothered. I just wasn't sure I understood your position and wondered if the ambiguity was intended.  I have no crystal ball and no way of knowing, but my guess is that if you leave your remark as a "comment", the closing admin may also be unsure of your position and conclude you were on the fence, leaning toward delete but not quite there.  That could be what you intended.  Msnicki (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does indeed indicate some ambiguity on my part, so we're on the same page. LaMona (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Re; Draft Catherine Havasi

 * Nothing is made up. Everything is well supported.. Please see sentence three of source 12 which is the Editor's Note in TechCrunch, in ital: "Catherine also directs the Open Mind Common Sense Project, one of the largest common sense knowledge bases in the world, which she co-founded alongside Marvin Minsky and Push Singh in 1999." Also, please note this sentence in the second to last paragraph of the profile of her in Boston Business Journal: "She also co-founded the Open Mind Common Sense project, which uses information about the world to understand natural language text and make computers easier to use.   The Fast Company profile naming her one of the "100 most creative people in business in 2015" and the Boston Business Journal profile naming her to its "40 under 40" list confer WP:Notability. Other sources that support facts in the article do not need to themselves primarily be about her. Please see WP:Notability, section entitled: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." So, for example, the PC Magazine article supports the fact about the intelligence of the program she created at MIT Media Labs. It's used to support the intelligence of the program, which is a related but salient fact, and not her WP:Notability.  In short, you're making a a very serious error under WP:Notability deleting sources that support facts in the article, even if they aren't about her.  The Push Singh Wired profile, for example, gives background about OMCS, such as its founding, which is relevant because she is the co-founder and director of the project. It doesn't matter that she isn't in that particular article. In addition to general notability, she also qualifies for WP:Academic, specifically WP:NACADEMICS "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." She is the director and co-founder of an academic project at MIT Media Lab called OMCS recognized by multiple relaiable sources as one of the leading programs, or the leading program in the field of artificial intelligence.   . Please also note criteria 7 of WP:NACADEMICS. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." In this case, using her work at MIT Media Labs to co-found a notable venture-capital backed company Luminoso Please also see for partial academic citations.Edsussman (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)EdSussman
 * You also have an incorrect understanding of WP:OR. Facts cited from a reliable source are not original research. "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." When the sources are reliable they may be used to support facts in an article even if they are not in sources that are primarily about the subject of the article. The sources themselves need not confer WP:Notability. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."  With regard to the source Venture Fizz, it is certainly a reliable source under WP:Reliable "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's a professionally edited, third-party website, not a personal blog or a self-published source. http://www.venturefizz.com/about Even if it's not used to convey WP:Notability as a first-tier source (like Fast Company and Boston Business Journal), it can be used to support other facts in the article. Edsussman (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)EdSussman
 * I should say that I appreciate your taking the time to read all these sources and sort through this. I understand it's time consuming and that looking for a specific fact in a long article is a pain. Please rest assured that I spent a few days putting this together and every fact cited is sourced. I am happy to point you to specific sentences in various sources, as I did for the co-founding and director references. I hope it proves unnecessary, but there are also rich sources in academic journals about her role as a prominent researcher in artificial intelligence. But these are highly technical articles. I have tried to source to popular works because they are easier to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsussman (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ed, I'm not questioning notability, I'm trying to make sure that the article follows WP style, including NPOV. Unfortunately, to me it looks promotional and a bit overdone. One isn't supposed to go beyond the facts in the encyclopedia article, and it's best to not look like there is any "gilding the lily" going on. This overdone-ness is confirmed for me in the sheer length of your response here. You can ask others to weigh in, but for my part I think you need to tone things down a bit. The reference overload, the notability by association (e.g. segments on Minsky and Singh) are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Stick to the facts about her, and I think you present her in a better light. The WP:OR warning has to do with making statements about her that aren't in the articles, perhaps based on knowledge you have. For example, note that the OMCS web site gives a 404, so it does not appear to be a current project, as does ConceptNet  so it doesn't make sense to say that she is "currently" the director of either. In fact, it's best never to say "currently" in an article because time passes, so you might want to say "was director from 9999" and if you don't know the end date, you just finesse it.  Yes, the TechCrunch article, from 2014, says she's the director of the project. I'm saying that there is some evidence that they have gotten it wrong, and you've also ended up with dead links. There are four articles listed about ConceptNet and the 4-year-olds that basically say the same thing and do not mention her. One would be sufficient. Four looks like overloading. These kinds of things are red flags to others looking at the article, and I'm trying to help you avoid this kind of scrutiny in main space. LaMona (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I appreciate your work as there are a lot of sources to contend with here. I typically respond long, even to small issues, because I like to explain myself well and fully cite the relevant passages. It's just my training as an academic and lawyer. Forgive me in advance for doing so again here to answer your questions.  ConceptNet 5 is a very active (and hugely important) open source project in AI producing a large volume of academic research. You can find the official site here: http://conceptnet5.media.mit.edu/  Older versions (ConceptNet 4, 3, 2) each had their own sites, which are discontinued when the new version releases. You must have clicked on a link to an older ConceptNet site which is now dead. For current research on ConceptNet 5, see this search on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=conceptnet+5&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=   ConceptNet is built entirely on OMCS. MIT Media Lab still maintains OMCS (see http://media.mit.edu/research/groups/5994/open-mind-common-sense for the official page on the MIT site) even though the site for public contributions has been subsumed by ConceptNet 5. But the project still needs to be maintained (it was a huge project involving thousands of contributors, creating a massive database), which is why there's still an MIT Media Labs page for it, listing Minsky, Speer and Havasi. The relationship between ConceptNet and OMCS is explained on Wikipedia OMCS under the ConceptNet section. You can find a technical explanation of how the two projects relate here, but it's an academic citation, not online.  I know she's no longer the director of ConceptNet 5 just by looking at their website. She just an adviser now, according to the site. Speer is the director. But I don't have a source for the year when she started as its director and when she finished.  I have a guess, but it's not sourced.
 * I understand why you were skeptical about her co-founding the OMCS project since she was a precocious undergraduate at the time, studying under Minsky. But the sources are accurate, which is why she appears so often as the lead author on academic research produced from OMCS and ConceptNet. See the references listed is the Partial Bibliography of the draft. You can find a couple dozen more like this by clicking on the Google Scholar citation in the draft. I don't have a source with the year for when she started as director of OMCS or I would finesse it as you suggested. Omitting "currently" is a good idea as it could become out of date, but I don't have the start date reliably sourced to structure it this way. She remains its director according to recent sources.
 * The New Scientist source in the article reports on the 4-year old verbal intelligence study and credits Havasi as the lead of the project, the lead of Concept 5, and quotes her extensively about the project. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23916-ai-scores-same-as-a-4yearold-in-verbal-iq-test.html#.VYT6lOds40A I thought the other sources, in more mainstream publications, would show that the study was widely reported on and therefore of general interest. So while the other sources are not needed to support the specific facts about Havasi (and they are redundant), they add some context. But aside form New Scientist, the other sources about the study of the ConceptNet program's verbal skill could certainly be omitted if you think it's gilding the lily. I'm not going to object if some or all of the ones not quoting Havasi are omitted.
 * I put in a touch of background about Minsky in the article because for the average reader, the significance of the MIT AI project will have more cultural grounding in the context of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Minsky's popular book. I thought it might make the article more interesting for an average reader. He was also, obviously, a very important influence in her life, as supported by the interview in Venture Fizz (not a first tier source, but still third-party, independent, written and edited by professionals.) I also find little personal details (e.g. that she read Minsky's book when still in high school, then went on to study under him and co-found an AI project with him) help bring articles to life. I think this can be done while still maintaining NPOV, but it's a judgment call. I don't find these sorts of biographical details to be peacocky because they don't say she's great at this or that - it's just a few interesting facts about the person's early life, which might otherwise get lost in the shuffle as the article grows over the years.
 * I apologize for being lengthy again. I strive to be civil, even though I'm verbose.Edsussman (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)EdSussman


 * The links to conceptNet and the other organization that I clicked on were the ones listed in your article as references. so you need to correct them. Those same links also turned up in a Google search. Information about the wonderful work of ConceptNet and OMCS, assumng they are notable, should be included about them, other than a brief sentence explaining what they are. For information about Minsky, he has a WP page so you only need to say something like "AI researcher Marvin Minsky" and anyone wanting more info about him will go to this page. (That's how WP works -- it's all about linking.) We aren't into bringing up ( much less referencing) personal details about Minsky or others who aren't the subject of this page. That info belongs on their pages. Now I've had enough. So go ahead and make your edits and ask for another round of review. LaMona (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed two of the citations about the study of the verbal acuity of ConceptNet4. I left in New Scientist, which interviews HAvasi and credits her as the project lead, and Gizmodo, which supports the assertion that it was/is one of the most advanced AI programs now in existence. I also tried to finesse the language around Havassi being director of OMCS -- "has served as director" instead of "remains director" -- even though I think it's slightly less accurate, as it implies she might not be now. I would add context about the state of the OMCS project and how ongoing open source contributions have been subsumed by ConceptNet 5, but I don't have a source that supports the complete explanation. I have not added back any of the information you deleted about Minsky or his early influence on Havasi; I just explained the original rationale here. I don't see any dead links among the references. There is a dead link on an MIT website page, but that's not something I can control. If when you did your Google Search you clicked on a version of ConceptNet earlier than ConceptNet 5, you would hit an archived or dead link. I added the current website link as a new citation to the draft. I will say that you still seem to be skeptical that the ConceptNet program is important, which is precisely why I linked to 4 popular sources each describing it as the most advanced verbal AI program in existence. It's what the sources say, not me. I can cite to academic literature as well, but that's very difficult for reviewers to fact check. I hope, in the end, you see that I've sourced everything well. Saying you think an article leans too heavily away from NPOV is a criticism I can understand and take guidance on but is very different from saying facts were invented. Edsussman (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)EdSussman

Mafia Capitale
Look this source: Salvatore Buzzi has paid 30 thousand euro for the election campaign to the mayor of Rome, Ignazio Marino. Manox81(talk) 20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Beth Benedict page
Hello again. Thanks for looking at the Draft page for Beth Benedict I have been working on. I've addressed some of your comments and concerns. If you are motivated or have the time take a look at the page and see what you think. At this point - I don't know what else to say. I included a link to Audism if that helps. :) If the page can't become a page it isn't because i didn't try...it is because the work that this scholar does is clearly not important enough to have a page. I must be honest when I say that there must be something about this person when there are so many references on so many different websites about this scholar. Thanks for considering. Djgriffin7 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Djgriffin7 Great job! And thanks for hanging in there. I expanded some of the references (adding their titles and publishers, which helps people understand their value) and sent it off into main space. I believe that there are categories relating to disability studies that could be added. It would be nice to get some attention to your good work. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Thank you for you constructive comments on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beth_S._Benedict. I have edited and I believe dealt with your concerns. I have resubmitted the page for consideration. Thank you. Djgriffin7 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello LaMona, thank you for your feedback on the Jan Serr page. I've added references with sources to print and online materials. If there is anything else that needs attention I will certainly make the corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katminerath (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)