User talk:Wredlich

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 02:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

"not a web directory" ??
I don't understand why you deleted my edits in the War on Drugs article. I added several sites that are highly relevant to the topic. You seem to say that Wikipedia is not a web directory, but there are a number of external links on that page that are less relevant to the topic.
 * Yes, that external links section is in severe need of a little cleanup, it's just that nobody's gotten around to it yet. If you want to volunteer that'd be great! --fvw *  03:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm picking nits, but I don't see why you decided to "clean up" my recent contributions (if that's an appropriate term) without removing other links. If external links are not a "web directory", then what is the purpose of external links? What makes a link worthy of being an "external link"?
 * I scan incoming edits and remove the ones that look like they're not going to improve wikipedia. It just happens that I was doign this when you added your link and not when others did so. Nothing personal. --fvw *  03:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, you removed my link on the Due Process page to my article on Substantive Due Process. I do think my discussion of substantive due process in the article is pretty thorough and worthwhile, if anyone wants to read more about the topic.
 * The link you added to due process was about the war on drugs, not about due process. --fvw *  03:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the link I added was an 80-page pdf article about applying substantive due process analysis to the drug war. While the article does talk at length about the drug war, it also has an in-depth discussion of substantive due process, including the history of the doctrine, with an awful lot of endnotes referring to Supreme Court cases and law review articles on this topic. If someone wants to learn more about substantive due process, it can be a valuable resource. I admit a bit of authorial (is that a word?) pride here, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant to the topic.


 * Ok, how about a compromise: You figure out which parts are about due process and we list the page numbers after the external link so people don't have to search for the material themselves. Sound reasonable? --fvw *  03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome but....
Welcome to Wikipedia, talking to someone on their first day is unusual for me. I'm happy to help with little editing chores and did a few things on your new articles to help them conform to common usage here. However, I have asked an administrator about the article -- which by your user name -- you created about yourself. These are usually considered "vanity articles" and are discouraged in the main encyclopedia. Wiki suggests that this information go on your User Page, where people can read about you as a person. The links to personal web sites are particularly appropriate on your User Page. So you may get a note from User:Mel Etitis about that article. I'll copy this note to his user page, so he will know we've been in touch. Hope to work with you again -- I do a lot of stuff on 19th century biographies! WBardwin 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That was quick -- you might want to take the people stub marker off. That puts your private user page on a stub sorting list for editors.  Hope to talk to you soon.  WBardwin 06:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Wredlich,

I've been working to sort stubs and I noticed that your user page is marked as a bio-stub. This template is, however, only supposed to be used for Mainspace articles and not on user pages. I hope you wouldn't mind removing the stub tag from your user page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page.--Carabinieri 13:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

notability of Warren Redlich
Hi. I noticed you put a notability tag on my page. I noticed that other candidates for Congress in New York (and many other states) have pages describing their candidacy. I modelled mine on the challenger from a neighboring district.

Please let me know what your specific concerns are, and I will do my best to resolve them.


 * I'd be happy to explain why I put the notability tag on that page. At wikipedia, we have several guidelines for notability. In this case, the most relevant is Notability (people), which has a number of criteria with which it might be made clear that someone is notable. Of these, you seem unlikely to qualify as a political figure as defined in the guideline (bullets two and three), but may get in via the press coverage catchall (last bullet in that first list). If you have any weblinks to press coverage of yourself, that would be most helpful. If you qualify as notable under one of our criteria, it'd be a good idea to provide the evidence as such in the article itself (if you just put a bunch of weblinks to external coverage at the bottom, I can read them and reformat them as footnoted references).


 * You should also be aware of Candidates and elections. While it is only a proposed guideline, it is an indication of how the wikipedia community feels about an issue, and therefore some cite it in discussions. I'd suggest you also work on an article on the election itself. We don't have one yet, and that would be super-helpful. Since you are a candidate, you should know a lot about it. Finally, use caution when writing about yourself for wikipedia. We all have difficulties assessing our own biases when we write about our own accomplishments.--Kchase02 T 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Following up on the notability tag and your post on my user profile, I added external links from CNN and Washington Post from the 2004 election, and the Republican Liberty Caucus page showing my endorsement for 2006.

I'm going to post a comment on the proposed candidates and elections policy. One of my concerns as a challenger (both in 2004 and now) is that all sorts of institutions favor incumbents. If Wikipedia policy is that incumbents are eligible for a page, but challengers have to meet some extra test, then that is a pro-incumbent bias.

I don't think this is that big of a deal coming from Wikipedia, but it is a tremendous problem for challengers when it comes to newspapers and television. An incumbent shows up to a school, shakes a couple hands, and gets a front page article in the local paper. A challenger campaigns for 20 hours a week for a year and yet sees a media blackout. When name recognition is so important, the only way you can get it against this bias is by buying it -- and I don't think most regular people think that's so great a political system.

The challenger in the next district (NY-20) is getting some press and has raised a ton of $$, but I don't see why she deserves more coverage than my campaign. Under what principle does she deserve a Wikipedia page and I don't? And I think if you review her page, you might find some objectionable material about her opponent. My "opponent controversy" bit that you deleted (appropriately) was really just making fun of what was on her page (maybe I need to work on my sense of humor here).

Anyway, I will post some of this on the proposed candidates and elections discussion.{unsigned|Wredlich}


 * I appreciate your concerns about the challenges facing challengers, but inclusion of another challenger is not really a valid argument. As you've discovered, anyone can make a page on wikipedia, so the fact that a page exists on someone of questionable notability doesn't necessarily mean they are notable, it just means that no one has proposed it be deleted. Frankly, I'm not sure that the links to CNN and the Post really qualify as non-trivial. They're both basic candidate profiles, not articles. Did you get any coverage by the local media in which you were the primary subject of non-trivial news?


 * Lastly, a couple of favors. Could you just reply here (keeps it readable) and sign your post with four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your signature when you post on talk pages. Thanks!--Kchase02 T 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just put up one local media article, but now that I know that's what you're looking for, I will add more. There were approximately 10 articles in our main local paper that were non-trivial. However, if this is a rule/policy, it simply reinforces the media bias against challengers. A much simpler rule would be that a candidate is notable if he/she gets on the ballot. In my case I was on the ballot last time so I should already be qualified. A new challenger might not be notable until they're on the ballot. I prefer a more open policy, but that might be a more clear line. Wredlich 02:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Warren

Brief followup -- I tried to add links to actual local media articles, but they do not keep such content online for free. Instead I went to the media page from my 2004 campaign site (which is no longer indexed by the 2006 campaign site, but is still online and indexed by Google). WarrenWredlich 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Those media links should do it, I suppose, though don't be surprised if your page gets merged into the 2006 campaign page closer to election season. Yeah, I saw the note you put in at the proposed policy's talk page. It's a difficult issue, since voters should be able to hear from all serious challengers during campaigns, but it's the actions imcumbents take as actors in government that make them notable, and candidates obviously can't do that. Oh, one last thing you should be aware of is WP:AUTO. Not a warning, just an FYI and perhaps a suggestion.


 * This conversation has piqued my analytical interest in your campaign. Would you mind dropping me an email for things more appropriately discussed off-wiki?--Kchase02 T 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:86++cropped-a.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:86++cropped-a.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Warren Redlich
I have nominated Warren Redlich, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Warren Redlich. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Blueboy96 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Blueboy96 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

www.town-court.com
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:86++cropped-a.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:86++cropped-a.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:86++cropped.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:86++cropped.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 West Boca Raton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! — rybec   00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Orphaned non-free image File:Headshot of Warren Redlich.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Headshot of Warren Redlich.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sierra Canyon School, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)