User talk:Unbiassed/Eric Talaska

This is a biography. Please feel free to make comments and suggest improvements to pass muster of editors once it is moved from user page to new biography. --Unbiassed (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are my main concerns with the article:
 * First is the issue of WP:NOTABILITY. For an article to be included in Wikipedia, it must have obtained "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As far as your sources go, EcoWhale and Talaska.com do not establish notablity because they are connected to the topic (and may also constitute original research if you happened to write them). Other sources that only mention the topic tangentially (such as the patent report or his appearance in the list of alumni) do not constitute "significant coverage". (It's hard to tell with some of them because the references do not link directly to the article that's being cited, just to the main page of the website).


 * Second, there is the issue of conflict of interest. Writing autobiographies is highly discouraged because of the inherent NPOV concerns.


 * I appreciate your contributions and the hard work you've obviously put into this article, but I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to include in Wikipedia for the reasons stated above. You are welcome to respond. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand and this helps me in building other biographies that better qualify and then possibly to be used once Talaska establishes qualifying notability; so the hard work went into it knowing this exact bio won't go into the mainstream Wikipedia for a while yet. But nonetheless regarding this bio, the ecowhale and talaska links are critical in providing details that otherwise would cause too much clutter in the bio if such details were put in the bio, so if such links are connected to a topic, is it better to leave the links off or include them? What Wikipedia sister website would be good to place a bio that does not qualify for wikipedia? Is it OK to leave this bio right were it is with the anticipation of adding sufficient unbiased and real nobility and only in that case moving it to mainstream? How about the use of first name vs. use of last name in the bio? Most use last name, but am wondering if using first name is frowned at?--Unbiassed (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. This doesn't harshly violate any rules that I'm aware of, although it seems to go against the spirit of WP:SUBPAGE and WP:USERPAGE just a tiny bit in that it isn't work that is directly related to the encyclopedia and is material of an unencyclopedic nature, although I wouldn't go so far as to say it would bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. I'd ask someone at the help desk.
 * As for your question about the links, I'd say that the links I've looked at are appropriate for verifying the facts they're being used for (for example, to verify that Talaska graduated from X place in Y year), but not for establishing notability (i.e., that the topic is important enough to have its own article). I don't think there's any WikiMedia foundation wiki that would have biographies of non-notable people, but there might be some other wiki out there.
 * Links that provide information that isn't discussed directly in the article should be placed in an External links section (see WP:LAYOUT). And always use the person's last name; that's just a matter of style. Hope that helps. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When I posted the first note on this page, how did you find out? Does this website have some automation robot/bot that randomly or otherwise lets an editor like yourself know a new post is available for comment? Are you the only one who was notified of this page? You must be able to see a lot more than a first level editor like myself can. It must be interesting. How are editors ranked? Is there a hierarchy table? I don't have a strong need to know, but I just like to understand. When I make an edit, minor or otherwise, on any of my contributions or even on my user page, will another editor like yourself be notified of each edit? If so, that seems to me like a daunting task for editors to monitor editors (I refer to users as first level editors here), especially with me as I tend to think of something new to add right after hitting the "Save page" button. Is there a way to see total number of contributions rather than the actual list and does credibility increase as the number increases? I have edited the highest profile articles such as Barack Obama's without any reversion back or rejection by anyone. Does this give me more credibility here? --Unbiassed (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently I have this page on my watchlist so I can see when changes are made. No, there is no hierarchy system on Wikipedia: all Wikipedians are equal and contributions are judged based on their own merit, not the stats of whoever wrote them. Thus, editing high-profile articles or a thousand doesn't inflate the standing of your edits on an unrelated article. There are, however, some edit counters available if you'd like to see some stats on the contributions you've made. And there's nothing wrong with making changes in multiple edits (I do that all the time).  &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

When a new article is posted that does not meet standards and should be deleted, how does anyone know it was posted? For example, if I create an article about dog noses, it will get deleted immediately because it's too specific of a category, but who would know I posted it and how? It seems to me there are a group of editors who are alerted upon any new posting.--Unbiassed (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some users that browse Special:Newpages, but I don't personally do that. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DroEsperanto, I don't know if you are watching Leon Talaska's biography page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leon_S._Talaska but since you nominated it for deletion, please note I have upgraded the references of notability to satisfy most; please consider removing the nomination for deletion. The page did need improvements on references, and I certainly understand the importance of good references. This needs to be made more clear to newer members, that is, don't waste time posting anything unless they can back it up with references. I don't mean to sound too opinionated, I'm just thinking this as a suggestion for the community.--Unbiassed (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)