User talk:W.marsh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives: July 2005 to March 2006 / March 2006 / April to May 2006 / May to June 2006 / June to July 2006 / July to August 2006 / August to September 2006 / October to November 2006 / November to December 2006 / December 2006 to January 2007 / January to February 2007
- If you post here, I will reply here. If I post on your talk page, I will watch it and there's no need to copy replies here
- If you are here to complain about a deletion (or other action), you must link to the article/action in question. I do not have time to play detective and find out what you're talking about, as it's often not very clear unless you provide a link.
Contents |
[edit] Re:Albert Pujols
I'd have to disagree with removing the tag. The article is nearly 25KB in length, but it only has 11 references. This is a BLP article, and I think that notice is appropriate in this situation. Besides, if I were to add {{fact}} tags to every unsourced statement, it'd fill up the article. Nishkid64 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well you're wrong... 11 references is not an unreferenced article. If there are BLP issues (claims you think are untrue), point them out and I will try to fix them. There's no policy that even says an article must have inline citations, let alone more than 11 of them because the article is over 25k. But if there are claims you think are dubious, then we can start talking about the need for references. --W.marsh 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The note says "This article does not adequately cite its references or sources." I believe that this article does not adequately cite its sources. All the references come from the introduction, the personal and accomplishments section. There are no references whatsoever in the main body of the article. I find that inadequate, and that's why I added the tag. Nishkid64 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the time being, I'll try to work on inline citations. Nishkid64 14:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't add references just for the fun of it... we add them because a claim actually needs a citation for whatever reason, e.g. an editor isn't sure if a claim is true, or would like to know where it came from for further reading. That is what not being adequately referenced means... you haven't indicated you have a problem with any of the claims, you just want more references for appearances sake. Just saying "uhh add more references to this article, even though I don't need them for any particular reason" isn't very helpful. I appreciate any help to actually improve the article though. --W.marsh 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the time being, I'll try to work on inline citations. Nishkid64 14:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The note says "This article does not adequately cite its references or sources." I believe that this article does not adequately cite its sources. All the references come from the introduction, the personal and accomplishments section. There are no references whatsoever in the main body of the article. I find that inadequate, and that's why I added the tag. Nishkid64 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD/6°Bacon
You probably want to edit your comment here to begin with “Keep.” —SlamDiego 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- And here I thought AfD wasn't a vote... hopefully we'll get a rare closer who reads more than the bolded words. --W.marsh 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- 'Twould be nice, but why count on it? —SlamDiego 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Twelve angry editors
Another thought: Let's say that we have an editor who has presumed that an article should be deleted, making a cursory reading of some other comments, each of which supports his or her presumption. Without a “Keep” to grab his attention, he or she might just throw in a “Yeah, this article should go.” But a lone “Keep” might get him or her to read, and be presuaded by the argument; and the surprise might cause him to apply similar reasoning to other articles in future. —SlamDiego 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hitachi Foundation article
A while back, you nominated a page I created on The Hitachi Foundation for deletion, citing that it did not cite its sources and was copy and pasted from The Hitachi Foundation's website. You suggested recreating it from scratch. I have done that and included numerous outside sources, and will be posting for DRV soon. As I am working with a mentor to get the hang of this Wikipedia thing, I posted it on a sub page first for people to look at and review. I would really like for you to take a minute and look it over and see what you think of the new article. Your insights would be very valuable. Thanks so much! I hope you see that I was creating this article in good faith. Julieatrci 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- It looks fine, except you might consider using the standard reference system as explained at WP:FN#How_to_use. You don't really need to go to DRV, you can just move the article back into the main namespace, using the "move" tab. --W.marsh 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NGOSS page
I'm inquiring to understand why the NGOSS page was deleted. I edited the page that was originally posted to correct and enhance the material. My company is a member of the TeleManagement Forum (www.tmforum.org) and an active participant in their NGOSS initiative. I can certainly check with the TMF and receive assurance from them that posting a page on wikipedia explaining NGOSS is ok.
Regards, Cliff
- If someone with an e-mail address from their webpage can e-mail me with permission to release under the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Copyrights, I will undelete it. But it's really best to just write articles in your own words. --W.marsh 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio deletion
Hey man, thanks for taking care of the copyvio problem at William H. Hardy, however I had a non-copyvio version under the William H. Hardy/Temp location, per the copyvio template. Is there any way to recover the non-copyvio version and use it as the main article? /Blaxthos 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --W.marsh 16:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
