User talk:Dgandco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the article on Dr. Barnes, I have removed a good deal of public relations-style talk. This is an encyclopedia, and a neutral tone is essential. Please check that none of the remaining material is copied from another web site--we cannot accept such material,--see WP:Copyright. DGG (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Family Promise

almost all of this article seems to be copied from their web site. Please see WP:Copyright -- it MUST be rewritten in your own words. & see WP:BFAQ--much of what is said there is highly relevant. Many administrators would have simply deleted this article. I have instead reduced it to a stub, since it appears notable. Do it right. DGG (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to fix the problems that you have discussed in your alerts What does it mean to have a conflict of interest, also how do i recieve notabiliy for these scholars? Finally I am also having citing issues. I would love to get all of these issues resolved in order to prevent deletion. Thank you for pointing out my errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.8.50 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] alert

I notice you have entered a number of biographies of other religious-related scholars and related organizations. Please do just the same with respect to them. I am very sympathetic to such articles, but you are leaving them very vulnerable to deletion. There is no point doing the work if it is not going to stay in Wikipedia. I caught some & improved them enough to stay in, but I can not fix them all for you--you go do it. DGG (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

I have been reviewing the series of article you have been writing, and they appear to be inserted in violation of our guidelines for conflict of interest, as detailed above. If you add any more such articles, you will surely be blocked. If you add any more material coped from websites, they will be immediately removed, and you will most certainly be blocked. The only two reasons I am not blocking you immediately are that you seem never to have received an adequate warning, and that it will be to the benefit of the encyclopedia that you fix your own work. This is a final warning. I can and will block you without further notice if this patten continues. We have an obligation to protect against copyright violation and conflict of interest--we cannot permit articles in violation of copyright to remain in Wikipedia. . If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here or on my user talk page. DGG (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing comments

Please ensure that you sign any comments that you leave on talk pages and project pages. Thank you. Adrian M. H. 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The basics

  1. . Do not ever copy anything from a website, unless you fulfill the requirements of WP:COPYRIGHT. even then, it must be suitable.
  2. . Read WP:BFAQ for information about conflict of interest and the necessary precautions.
  3. . Read WP:PROFTEST from information about what counts as notability for faculty and researchers
  4. . Remember the difference from an academic CV, which lists everything pertinent, and an encyclopedia article, which contains only information about the most important accomplishments.
    1. . List only major works: Books, the most important peer-reviewed journal articles, major awards, chairmanships, and so on.
    2. .Books are shown to be important by first, the nature of the publisher, and second, reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Include exact citations to such reviews, and third, being cited elsewhere.
    3. It is appropriate to list all the published books. Works in progress don't count for much.
    4. .Journal articles are shown important by fisrst, being published in excellent journals, and second, being widely cited. In the humanities, Scopus and Web of Science unfortunately dont work for citation counts--do the best you can with google Scholar.
    5. Overall number of peer reviewed articles is important, but do not actually list them all. Only the most highly cited or most recent or most significant. Usually, 5 is sufficient.
    6. Internal university committees are not usually of encyclopedic importance, nor is service as a reviewer. Editorships are. Positions as the head of major projects are.
    7. Teaching is only of encyclopedic importance if documented by major awards, notable students, or widely used textbooks .
    8. University administration below the Chair level is not usually important.
    9. Details of undergraduate work is not usually important, nor is any graduate work except the doctoral thesis research.
    10. work done independently after establishment as a full member of the profession in one's own right is what is important.
  5. Remember the difference between public relations and an encyclopedia article
    1. Avoid adjectives of praise or importance
    2. Mention things once only.
    3. Mention the full name , & name of the u niversity and department, only once or twice.
    4. Avoid needless words. Write concisely.
    5. Avoid non-descriptive jargon, and discussions of how important the overall subject is to society.
    6. Important public activities need to be documented by exact references to reliable 3rd party public sources/. don't use vague phrases about importance to the community and the like--list specific activities.
    7. .Do describe the research in specific terms, but briefly. Link to a few very specifically appropriate WP articles.
  6. . follow WP style
    1. . Differentiate between External links, and references.
    2. . Link only the first appearance of a name of an institution or subject, but link all institutions and places
    3. . Give birthdate and place if possible
    4. . Use italics for book titles and journal titles, never bold face. DGG (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)