User talk:Marje2010

Welcome!

Hello, Marje2010, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Lansdowne Park Conservancy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! noq (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Lansdowne Park Conservancy


The article Lansdowne Park Conservancy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not WP:notable. Appears to be a fairly new local pressure group.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lansdowne Park Conservancy
A tag has been placed on Lansdowne Park Conservancy 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 an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wuh Wuz  Dat  12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Lansdowne Park
Hi. I've been editing here on Wikipedia since 2006. What you are doing on the Lansdowne Park article is not what we do here on Wikipedia. We write neutral articles covering the article from an outside point of view. It appears that you are a member of the LPC. We discourage persons directly connected from any editing. We need secondary input, secondary sources. You are giving undue prominence to the LPC proposal. You are using inappropriate words about the current process. This is not the place for it. You created an article that was quickly deleted from Wikipedia. Please learn the rules. We are not editing here to present a single point of view. Also, remember that this article is not an -effective- place to make your case. There will be a few thousand hits per month on the article. Not that much, really. Make your case there in Ottawa via the media, television, radio, election campaigns. Much more effective and to the point. Wikipedia wants to be independent and neutral. And I support that. If we get slanted content, it puts the whole encyclopedia into doubt. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You may have been writing since 2006, but you are clearly not up to speed on some crucial technical details about the park. The process is a sole sourced negotiation, there is no partnership until a contract is signed. We are at Phase 2, meaning either party can walk. Please also stop putting the LPC information into Opposition. The LPC is proposing not opposing. The LPC is clearly not against development, just prefers one that is more respectful of the site Nor is the LPC and advocacy group. It is a competitive bid. See the website if you need more information.


 * I think today's edits were a bit more restrained, that's good. I think there is a place for LPC in the article. I do. It's just that if you go too far to pushing a POV, it's not ok within the Wikipedia guidelines. Everyone here at Wikipedia is completely open to valid and verifiable information about any topic. We've got lots of articles starting with 'Politics of' ... The editing community by and large is really good. We have big debates about how to come to consensus. How to keep new editors interested even when we throw in roadblocks. How Wikipedia has been attacked by the conservative right and how to cope. The various lawsuits Wikipedia is defending. We put in rules to guide bio articles. That said, other editors would not tolerate putting the Lansdowne Park Conservancy into the article in any big way, without valid, objective reasons and secondary sources (e.g. newspaper articles about the LPC). When I added the 'Opposition' section it was to make a place for it, for the LPC proposal. Do you understand? Think of the article from the standpoint of the world. It's a debate, a political isue within Ottawa. We've made standards to be fair. If there is too much information about the LPC, then someone from OSEG could claim that the article is not neutral, report it to an admin and have content deleted and the article frozen. That is within the Wikipedia rules. As for putting into Opposition, that was not to diminish in any way. It was to be fair and provide context. To me, the LPC opposes the current redevelopment plan, named 'Lansdowne Partnership Plan' on the City's website. (that's why I used those words - they're official) That seems pretty clear. Why would you object to that? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow up and glad to hear we are getting to a meeting point. The issue of opposition is something the LPC has worked hard to stay away from. The debate has been those opposed and those for the development. The LPC is neither. It is proposing a different development that meets the need for a stadium but does so in a manner that is respectful to the site and the taxpayer. It is truly not opposed to development, nor the developers, it simply has what it believes to be a much more competitive proposal


 * The article has been placed under semi-protection, but it is in better shape after some edits I have done today. Under redevelopment there is the Lansdowne Live section, Other proposals and Opposition sections. Hopefully this can contain all content in an acceptable manner. I'd like to add more content from a media search of the 2008/2009 period, and I can't do that with extensive back and forth of hacking at the article. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi alaney2k. Looks like its settling down and I like the new section for Other Proposals, makes good sense. I have added an article about the partnership between the Conservancy and Stadium/Design Firm NBBJ. All the best and keep up the good work!Marje2010 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I can't seem to edit the section. I wanted to add that "Today, Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at Ottawa City Council, The Lansdowne Park Conservancy was pleased to announce its partnership with International Stadium and Design Firm NBBJ. This substantial partnership affords the Conservancy the design, professional costing and project management to enable it to complete its competitive bid (Coverage Ottawa Sun, Jon Willing http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/09/14/15351306.html) Many thanks if this can be inserted please. All the best marje2010 Marje2010 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is because the article is semi-protected. About what you add -- that uses too many peacock terms. See WP:PEACOCK. Secondly, the text sounds like an advertisement, which is also not okay. It's considered spam. See WP:ARTSPAM. I'll edit the article. Further requests to edit the page should go on the Talk:Lansdowne Park page. That way any confirmed editor can do the add. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. Basically it was just to announce the partnership with NBBJ, stadium/park design/project management firm.Marje2010 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)