User talk:Suefidler

Your post at NCH
Removing your post from NCH while I was in the middle of replying was no less unconstructive than removing the tags from the article in question without bothering to address the issues that they raise. Acting like that makes other editors much less inclined to help you and believe in your good faith. I recommend that you take some time to study the policies and guidelines that describe the way in which we work at Wikipedia.  Adrian  M. H.  21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise sincerely. I had spent considerable time reading the editing guides, looking at other pages and then, after writing the page, in trying to find out how to get those boxes taken off or re-considered. I totally understand and agree with the need for all the parts of the page, my frustration was with the boxes which said it didnt have cetegories and references.

immediately,(and i do mean within 10 seconds), of that post I saw the question above which gave me the answer. rather than being a smart arse or trying to annoy i thought I was saving somebodies time and had no idea anybody would have picked it up that quickly.

Very sorry. Suefidler 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC) SueFidler

My apologies again, but I very carefully looked at other similar pages. Could you tell me why the page is classed as uncategorized (it has categories) needing references etc, when it has the same level of information as a page such as John Urry--Suefidler 00:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Sue Fidler


 * It does not have any categories beyond those that allow editors to track the maintenance backlog. This person about whom you are writing might be sufficiently notable to pass WP:PROF; but you need to demonstrate beyond reasonable dispute that at least one (preferably more than one) of the criteria are met or exceeded. The sources are listed as a bunch of URLs, which doesn't really cut it vis a vis WP:V and WP:REF. Have you not got any printed sources that you can use? They will ideally need to be cited more effectively as well. It needs some wikification and rewriting; it is currently written and structured like a CV in the third person.  Adrian  M. H.  00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.. with categories I had added British sociologists|Academicians of the Social Sciences which was the code i had seen in the tutorial and how to edit pages. this was then removed and I have now added it back inthe format which is what I found by editing other pages, but now these categories have gone in next to the 'uncatgorised comments in the footer box.

Re references, arent her book publications that i have listed enough? You ask for printed material and I have listed 13 books, in exactly the same format as other pages. On John Urrys page there are only three references, all links to other sites, so actually there are more refernces on Sylvias page?

Will re-write later today. But again i followed the format on Johns page, so I am slightly bemused! clearly i have gotten it almost all wrong when I worked quite hard to get it right and thought that by following the pattern and style of a published page it would be a good page. --Suefidler 07:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A list of published works are not references. All that does is state that she has written these books. I guess you have not read WP:REF and WP:RS yet. And it is inadvisable for newcomers to make comparisons with other articles; that is what we call a WAX argument. You have now added some categories successfully, but you have not removed the uncategorized tag, so I recommend that you do that. It really helps those of us who work on the backlog if the maintenance categories only include articles that actually need a particular fix.  Adrian  M. H.  09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not want to re move any tags after being tod off for doing so the first time. I dont seem to being to well here.. will try harder--Suefidler 12:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re the WAX issue, i wasnt saying that Sylvia deserves to be in because John is, only that I had looked at the refernces and external links on johns page and made sure i had at least as many on Sylvias. If her publications and links to her current post, a major EU group site, her cv, publisher arent enough can you tell me what is? I have read both WP:REF and WP:RS.Suefidler 12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to explain why these are either bad references or not actually references at all. Anything that is directly connected to her or published by her (or in her name) is not suitable, because it is (a) primary and (b) not deemed to be neutral and reliable. cannot function as a reference; it is a search result from a shopping site that shows that a Silvia Walby has written or co-written some books, but it is not editorial or non-trivial. This is no more suitable than citing something from Amazon, and we do not do that.  features only trivial mentions; cite the documents themselves, by all means, but this is not a reference.  is self-authored by the subject of the article, so is not acceptable as a reference source beyond the realm of citing the non-controversial statement that she works (or has worked, since web pages cannot be trusted to be up to date) at Lancaster Uni. If you want to use it for this purpose only, then make it a footnote and keep it specific to that single fact. The style of referencing that you have chosen is suitable only for listing significant sources (normally of the printed variety) that have been used for large parts of the content, usually the majority of it. For example, you may see an article about the Russian assault on Berlin in April 1945 that takes most of its material from two major works on the subject, such as Antony Beevor's Berlin: The Downfall, and lists the two books as its sources. It is quite likely to have footnotes for other sources that were used for certain specific statements, as well as some explanatory notes. Just take a look at the best Good Articles and any Featured Article. If Silvia Walby is notable, she will have been the subject of a number of editorial treatments from published material that is independent of the subject herself and covers the subject in a non-trivial way. This may, for example, be a journal or newspaper article that refers to her work as a sociology professor or writes about her because of some other notable achievement.  Adrian   M. H.  17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I will do some more research and find this type of reference and move those I have to external links.. if the page isnt deleted as it has been marked as spam by Nucleusboy.Suefidler 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be because it reads like a CV, I suspect. I know that it wasn't your intention to promote this person, but that is how it reads, especially with the iffy sources. WP gets a lot of vanity articles.  Adrian  M. H.  17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sylvia Walby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Nucleusboy 14:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Claire McNab
Hi, Suefidler! Sorry about that - I think I saw that she was teaching at UCLA and just didn't think. Thanks for your work on the article! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)