User talk:Tmacentee

Wikipedia is not a link directory
Please don't create articles that are nothing but a list of links. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

genealogy blogs?
Genealogy blogs aren't particularly useful as external links, and since wikipedia isn't a collection of lists, a list thereof wouldn't last long as a page for 'see also'. Please bring questions and concerns to the article talk page in the future, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Geneablog notification
A page you created, Geneablog, has been marked for discussion at Articles for Deletion, because it is a neologism with little notability. ThuranX (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Response and restoration of Discussion which was "vaporised"
I guess it didn't take long to ruffle Wikipedia's feathers. Thanks Mr. Z. I don't take it personally but and while I have read Wikipedia's Deletion Policies, I think that you all are trying too hard for legitimacy in light of criticism that Wikipedia's entries are all pop culture, which I know not to be true.

Congratulations on your route to being the next "authoratitive" encyclopedia. Or should I say authoritarian? Cheers!

Original article as submitted:

A geneablog is a blog written by someone with an interest in genealogy and family history. Geneablog authors are often researching their own family history and blog about their research projects, aspects of their family history, requests for assistance in resolving elusive ancestors and other challenges. Some genealog authors are professional genealogists documenting their services but also their research projects, both personal and professional.

Many geneablogs are specifically focused on certain areas of genealogy such as specific ethnicities (Jewish genealogy, Polish genealogy, Canadian genealogy), time periods (Colonial America), or topics (technology, photography, oral history).

Category:Genealogy Category:Computing and society Category:Blogging

Discussion:

I guess I will need to make an extensive argument for non-deletion of a this page entitled geneablog.

First, I am not sure what you mean by this:

"A page you created, geneablog, has been marked for discussion at Articles for Deletion, because it is a neologism with little notability."

Frankly I think that I and the rest of the genea-blogger community know what this means but I'd prefer that you say it in plain english and in a way that demonstrates that Wikipedia truly is "The Free Encyclopedia" and not some secret society of critics and elitists who feel that certain concepts or trends are not important, notable, or worthy of mention.

The argument:

- Wikipedia already has set precedent in the inclusion of the page edublog as a standalone page and as a See Also section under blog. Quite frankly, I never heard of an edublog until I read the section under blog.

- In addition, Wikipedia also has a section entitled house blog in the same blog page. It strikes me that the lead-in statement "A house blog is a Blog created with the sole intent of using it to share and chronicle a home improvement or renovation process" could serve as a model statement for geneablog which is already in place on the page you feel the need to delete: "A geneablog is a blog written by someone with an interest in genealogy and family history. Geneablog authors are often researching their own family history and blog about their research projects, aspects of their family history, requests for assistance in resolving elusive ancestors and other challenges. Some genealog authors are professional genealogists documenting their services but also their research projects, both personal and professional."

- Geneablogging is the same type of chronicling yet it has many more features and capabilities than an edublog and definitely more than a house blog. As a geneablog author I chronicle not only my research along my family lines, which are quite extensive and go back 10+ generations, but the mere placement of those surnames and given names in a blog enable others in the blogosphere and on search engines to connect with their own pasts. I know who these ancestors are and granted it may be quite a bit of work for me to enter their information in the form of ancestor biographies, family history stories, and other formats, but I do so not to show off my own feathers, but so that I may connect with family members and far-flung cousins. And I do so in order to encourage others to take a look at their own family history, their roots and ponder the question, "where did I come from."

- I also don't understand why the link to geneablog in the See Also section for blog was eliminated unless it was a further means of isolating the geneablog page, orphaning it into a stub, and seeking its early demise through eventual deletion.

- Enough with the questionable practices of Wikipedia monitors who seem hell bent on crafting a certain vision of topics with a criteria known only to them, and perhaps the others that might live in their mother's basement. Let's move on to the real evidence of a genea-blogger community in the blogosphere:

- those who manage, author and host geneablogs, known as geneabloggers, constitute a growing community in several social networking environments, the largest being Facebook. See http://groups.to/genea-bloggers/.

- there are currently over 200 geneablogs out in the blogosphere and perhaps more. I did have several of them listed as links on a page that was quickly deleted (and why a page of links to edublogs was not deleted? hmmmmm) here on Wikipedia and I am not going to waste my time entering all the names and links again. You'll just need to find the links yourself. Suffice it to say, some of the more "notable" geneablogs are:

Creative Gene Moultrie Creek Footnote Maven Geneamusings Hill Country of Monroe County, Misissippi AnceStories: The Stories of My Ancestors The California Genealogical Society blog

- the site Alltop which lists some of the top blogs in the blogosphere has included a genealogy category with over 90 geneablogs related to family history and genealogy (http://genealogy.alltop.com)

- Blog Action Day 08 (http://www.blogactionday.org/) coming up on October 15, 2008 so far has 4,035 blogs registered to participate. I was able to convince Collis Ta’eed, the event organizer to include a genealogy category to parse out the geneablogs from the history section.

- Google currently carries 565,000 results for the search "genealogy blog" and 24,700 results for "geneablog."

- I would wager to say that geneablogs have been around since the start of blogging since blogging is the perfect vehicle for sharing one's research with other like minded genealogists and family historians.

I'll get off my soap box and end my Julia Sugarbaker moment now and I apologize if I seem overly passionate or antagonistic. This has been a very rewarding week for geneabloggers despite their treatment by Wikipedia: we've seen great growth in our numbers, increased social networking and collaboration among our members, and we have a greater sense of purpose than ever. Geneabloggers have often been seen as the ugly red-headed step-children of the genealogy community, with several so-called experts even going so far as to toss the term "pajama genealogists" our way. While we continue to deal with that sort of treatment from our own community, I'm not sure taking on Wikipedia is worth the effort, quite frankly. We'll just come back in a year and perhaps the term "geneablog" will be more acceptable and pleasing in someone's sight.

article on Thomas MacEntee
Another editor nominated this page for speedy deletion as having no indication of importance. He should have notified you, and I apologize for that on behalf of the encyclopedia. But I see from the article that you have indeed noticed.

As reviewing administrator, I thinks there is indication of  notability But you will need to show proof of it through references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. References to your own websites and the like are not sufficient.

Please also see our rules about Conflict of Interest. As they say, even with Conflict of Interest you may edit, provided you do so objectively. It is not advised, because experience shows that a person will have great difficulty writing an objective article about themselves.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest nt, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of the organization wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you think you can do it right according to the guidelines, and have sufficient sources, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity. I advise you to improve the article with such sources very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process, which is almost certain to happen.

I do not want to discourage you, but to urge you to write a proper article if it is possible; if it is not yet possible, please help us by improving our other articles on related topics.  DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)