User talk:Znlrwl



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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Solar

T.R.M. Howard
Good work. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Liberty and power
Howdy! Please review WP:WEB to see why your article has been deleted twice. Best regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You've recreated it a number of times with no discussion, so I must begin to suspect that you are not interested in participating in resolving the issue as to whether or not it belongs and must assume that my original research indicating that it is a NN is correct. Consequently, I have deleted and protected it against recreation.  If you wish to reconsider your approach, I'd love to hear from you. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wrote you an email but haven't heard back yet. I can't understand why you deleted the piece on Liberty and Power, especially as I was trying to post it. I looked over the page you sent and did not see any indication that I did anything wrong. I have repeatedly and constructively contributed to Wikipedia and have never had this happen before.

Please more specific on what I need to do and I will be happy to comply. It might be faster if you sent me an email.

P.S. On what basis, do you conclude that L and P is NN? The members include Robert Higgs, Radley Balko, Donald Boudreaux, and Roderick Long, all of whom have bios at Wikipedia. If L and P is NN, aren't they too as members of L and P NN?


 * Using email to resolve wiki issues is absolutely inappropriate. You haven't "done anything wrong" and are not being punished or anything, it's just that WP is not a web list of every blog.  There has to be some notability, and the L&P blog simply doesn't appear to meet that criteria.  I hope you will continue to contribute, but I have a couple of suggestions.  1. When someone tries to talk to you about something, don't ignore them.  2. Use Wikipedia talk pages to talk to people here, not email.  3. Read the applicable policies and guidelines when writing articles, and when someone draws your attention to an area of improvement, take a moment to review how it may apply to you.  If you can show how the L&P blog meets Alexia rankings, for instance, you'd be more effective at arguing your case than if you simply say "I don't get it".  Regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. I apologize for not responding earlier.

I am not simply saying "I don't get it." As noted above your reply, our members include Roderick Long, Robert Higgs, Donald J. Boudreaux, and Radley Balko (all of whom have Wikipedia bios). Our guest bloggers have included the likes of Nicholas Von Hoffman. If we are NN, aren't they too? There are any number of blogs at Wikipedia that do not have this record of notability. I could list them if you like.

Lastly, we are part of the History News Network, the leading history news service in the U.S.  Please more fully explain why you made the decision that we are NN. What more do I need to do to prove "notability?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Znlrwl (talk • contribs).
 * Please sign your messages with ~ . The members of a group might be notable on their own merits, I haven't examined the people you listed.  I offered some suggestions above on the notability, and WP:WEB is a list of ways to determine it in regards to a website.  Please use it as your guide.  If you can provide a list of other NN blogs, please do and we'll take care of them asap.  Thanks! - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"I haven't examined the people you listed." You haven't done this???? They are right at the top of the blog roll. What kind of "research" did you do? Don't you have some responsibility to provide evidence before dumping the burden of proof on me. FYI, I have bracketed the names. Where can I appeal your decision?
 * I've given you the exact methods you need to assert notability, it's up to you whether you are to use it. If you feel that the available resources do not meet your needs, you are welcome to appeal the deletion on WP:DRV.  I suggest you get your ducks in order and answer the items I posed above first, DRV will be looking for the same information I was.  Regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gee whiz, I am spending a nice sunny Sunday trying to refute someone who did not research any on our members (including those with Wikipedia bios!) to determine Notability and then shifts the burden of proof to me. Don't you feel some personal responsibility to do some basic research before making decisions to delete entries? Again, if you thought we were NN, on what specific basis did you make this decision?

As you suggest, I will appeal this and also highlight your admission that you did not research our members even though the information was readily at hand both at Wikipedia and at Liberty and Power.
 * Please do, but note that it's not my job to research the members of the group. I didn't delete them, I deleted the entry for the blog.  It's your job as the creator/editor to assert the notability of the group.  If you'd like assistance with the DRV process, just let me know.  - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you must have had a reason to delete the entry? What was it? If I am going to appeal this, presumably the admininistrators would like to know what was going on in your head when you made this decision. Znlrwl
 * A note, I actually am an administrator here, hence the deletion. In regards to your other question, as I have stated above, I applied WP:CSD A7 bolstered by an apparent failure to meet WP:WEB.  I have asked you repeatedly to note which of the WP:WEB criteria this meets, but you haven't.  It is your perogative, of course, but until you do so, you may have difficulty getting the article up.  Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, the guidelines in place for establishing notability are designed to keep the project coherent.  None of these policies are being used as any sort of attack against you, they are available for you to use to remedy this situation.  I again offer any assistance you need, but the burden of showing why this article belongs on WP rests with you.  Regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 19:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of what happened this morning and repeat my apology for not responding at the beginning but that was several hours ago.

Let me repeat the question. On what basis, did you take your initial action? That is my only question. It seems entirely proper to ask. You must have had some reason to believe that this particular entry did not pass muster. I have submitted other articles to Wikipedia and they have never been questioned. Why was this one different? Frankly, in my view (for the reasons already stated) even a cursory look at the blog would reveal sufficient notability. Of course, you disagree. Why?

I have several deadlines today and will certainly pursue this when time permits. Of course, as per your offer of help, I would be even happier if we could settle this without further rancor or red tape.

znlrwl 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No rancor on my side, and the 'red tape' is just the policies and guidelines that keep the project together. As I stated previously, I deleted the article because it met Wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion.  I stand ready to answer any questions you have, my only request is that they not be the same ones over and over again.  Thanks!

You offered "help." My only problem is the question of how I demonstrate notability (using the page you gave me as a guide) if you won't tell me why you regard it as NN? You must have had a reason. Reading the page you sent, it passes muster (for reasons I have already explained) for "Wikipedia criteria" e.g. the accomplishments of the members, the fact that many already have Wikipedia bios, etc.

In any case, if you don't want to share your reasons for acting in this case (and only this case), that is fine. What do you suggest I do now? Should I go up the ladder to the pages you give and restate the arguments for notability that I have already given you e.g. the bios of the members, etc. As a lifelong enemy of red tape and bureucracy, I'd rather not do this.

But I will do so if you think it is necessary and/or I will answer any specific concerns that you have. FYI, I used the Volokh entry as a template. znlrwl 20:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ONE LAST QUESTION: How do I get a copy of the entry I posted? I checked history at it is nowhwere to be found. If I am going to make a case, I'd rather not spend hours recreating it. Thanks. znlrwl 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I can reconstruct it from another file —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Znlrwl (talk • contribs).
 * I've restored an exact copy of the most recent revision to your userspace: User:Znlrwl/Liberty and Power. Hope it helps!  Regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable blogs
There are probably over a million blogs in all languages. As with other topics, Wikipedia editors have created criteria for assessing the notability of blogs and other websites to ensure that we limit ourselves to those worth having an article. The fame and notability of contributors is not, in and of itself, a criterion. (For example, Charlton Heston is notable but if he created a blog it would not automatically be notable). As with most other topics, the assessment of notability is gauged by how many others have made note of the subject. In the case of a website the criteria are: has it been referred to repeatedly in newspapers, magazine, or other reliable sources; has it won significant awards; or is it the product of a notable organization. Unless the article the website includes some reference to one or more of these then it is properly considered "non-notable". Can you find instances of "L&P" meeting any of those?

FYI, I looked at the Volokh Conspiracy article. That article asserts the notability of its subject by claiming to have been on a list of the top 100 blogs as of July 3. However, as of July 31 it is not on that list. It would be proper to challenge that assertion and subsequently to challenge the notability of that blog.

Lastly, please don't take it personally. We probably delete several articles every day about blogs that don't contain assertions of notability. Deletion is not a statement of the quality of the blog. -Will Beback 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberty and Power: A Notable Blog
Will:

Thanks for the quick reply. Please forgive the delay, but I have had a family problem to attend to. I don't take it personally. The objective argument for inclusion of Liberty and Power is compelling and independent of the personal issue. First, let me tackle your point about well-known contributors. I agree with your Charleton Heston example but it goes far beyond one or two notable individuals in this case. Liberty and Power has ELEVEN (count 'em eleven) notable contributors, each of whom have Wikipedia bios (all produced independently): Sudha Shenoy, Robert Higgs, Radley Balko, Peter Boettke, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Donald J. Boudreux, James Otteson, Karen Kwiatkowski, Sheldon Richman. Surely, a blog with so many distinquished scholars and writers, all recognized independently by Wikipedia, must qualify Liberty and Power as notable. 

Second, the Liberty and Power blog is indeed sponsored by a "notable organization:" the Center for History and New Media which also has an independently produced Wiki entry. Let me also that several of the blogs listed in Wiki's small category of "libertarian blogs" (who shall remain nameless) do not come close to meeting either of these standards. 

Finally, you ask whether Liberty and Power had been cited by mainstream media. David T. Beito has been quoted on the Emmett Till murder case several times in such publications as the Chicago Tribune, the Clarion Ledger, and the Chicago Tribune because of blog entries on this topic. One of these blogs also led to an op-ed piece on this subject in the Atlanta Constitution. Just google the terms "Liberty and Power" and "David T. Beito" and "Emmett Till" though I'd be happy to provide more info. Additionally, the blogs of Radley Balko on Cory Maye case have generated media coverage.

znlrwl 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The original article did not include those assertions of notability. Can you draft a revised version here User:Znlrwl/temp which includes all of that? Once we have a version with a good assertion of notability I think there won't be any problems. Hope your family problem turned out OK. Cheers, -Will Beback 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do! I should have it within a couple of days. Thanks for being so fast!

znlrwl 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A note, this is what I asked you to do last week. I too look forward to seeing a revised version. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chairboy, you were the initiating admin here. I'm sure you'll agree that this isn't a useless stub, nonsense, or a subject without any claim of notability. It asserts more notability than many similar articles. Claims should have references but that is a separate matter. On the basis of the assertions of notability made in this article, I believe that the subject matter has gone beyond what is speedily-deleted. -Will Beback 06:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberty and Power
Looks good, addresses my A7 concerns. I've put your revision up, I encourage you to keep refining it. Keep in mind that another editor would be able to submit it for the deletion process (WP:AFD), so I suggest you beef it up as much as possible. Regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers!

znlrwl 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)