User talk:Garycdunn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Gary, I have marked the Caretaker Gazette as an candidate for Deletion, since it appears to be advertising. If you disagree with this, please let your views be known.Trishm 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1 February 7
2 Reposting material
3 Deletion Review
4 Not Forgotten
5 Rewritten
6 Revised
7 Please try again
8 New DRV

[edit] February 7

A tag has been placed on Caretaker Gazette, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Caretaker Gazette is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Caretaker Gazette saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.

Please try deletion review instead of recreating this page. --Onorem 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC) A tag has been placed on The Caretaker Gazette, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how The Caretaker Gazette is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:The Caretaker Gazette saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Mhking 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reposting material

Please stop recreating these articles. Take it to deletion review if you have an issue with it. --Onorem 14:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review

I had to undo your edit to deletion review. You forgot to say which page you wanted undeleted, and the error was malforming the entire page. I find too many deleted pages related to "Caretaker Gazette" to know which you want undeleted. (Hint, the one with the best article in accordance with the core content policies for a neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability is the one most likely to be restored.) Please try relisting, or drop me a note on my talk page with a [[link]] in that format and I'll recreate your nomination. GRBerry 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your response, don't have time to answer fully before I go to bed. I did move it from my user page to my user talk page. The user page is for telling other editors who you are, the "talk" page is for discussion. That is why there is, in the tabs at the top, a tab labeled "discussion". (Here, we are on your discussion page.) When talking on a discussion page, please end your post by typing four tilde characters: ~~~~. That will automatically sign with your username and the time you posted.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so a tertiary source. Our core content policies require that all material be written from a neutral point of view, verifiable to our readers (which does not mean the sources have to be online), and not original research. As an encyclopedia, there are also a whole bunch of things that Wikipedia is not.

It appears that you are probably the publisher of the gazette. If so, you suffer from a conflict of interest, and I recommend reading the guidance on handling those. If I just list your appeal as it was on deletion review, without doing anything more, it probably will not get the article undeleted. You are in a good position to know of an track

One of our criteria for speedy deletion is a recreated article that is "substantially the same" as one deleted by a prior deletion discussion. Such a discussion was held here earlier this month, and a decision to delete was made. This is the decision you would be appealing at deletion review. There is another path - "substantially the same" generally is understood to mean "not solving the problems that led to deletion in the first place". It was nominated for deletion because it read like advertising, and didn't have any references to reliable and independent sources discussiong the guide. (And probably also because it is a niche publication, so most people haven't heard of it.)

If we can find the sources, we should be able to use them to fix the tone. The discussion back in 2005 here said the gazette had been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. That might be a first good source. Can we cite a copy (issue, byline, page, etc...) and do you have a copy that you can put online somewhere? I see a snippet at | the Gazette's "Reviews and Articles" page. If we can look at the full version of all of those mentions, and cite the sources (with enough detail to let a reader go find a copy of the originals), we'll be well on the road to writing an article that would have a good chance at deletion review. They, hopefully, will also give us the materials we need to obtain a neutral point of view.

Buy, because we have to have a neutral point of view, if you know of any negative coverage or controversies involving the gazette about which there have been publications, we need to make sure the article covers them also.

Anyway, I'm heading to bed. Please take the time to dig through your records, and start looking for the source copies and citations that are going to be needed to get the article up to current standards. GRBerry 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. I've been dealing with my personal life, and haven't had time for significant contributions here. I hope to get to the CG item tonight, but can't guarantee it. GRBerry 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten

I've just rewritten the article from the independent sources. This diff shows the difference between the two versions. Writing solely from independent sources is tough for people intimately connected with a topic to do, but is the best way (if they are also referenced) to create an article that adheres to the content policies, most importantly the neutral point of view. Sources that you had provided and aren't currently referenced did not offer anything useful for writing the article; mostly just "X and Y have a position in location Z, which they found through an ad in The Caretaker Gazette" type mentions. Is there anything factually incorrect in the article? If so, what reliable source can be used to correct those errors? GRBerry 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised

Dear GRBerry, thank you very much for the time you put into this. I appreciate it and the good work you are doing! I have comments and a slight Revision for you below: COMMENTS: WORST: Almost no actual content online. (Best of the Web. Forbes.)  Dear GRBerry, I see where you would write “There is also a website that Forbes panned as almost no online content beyond the ability to purchase subscriptions or ads” from the 2003 Forbes article, however, because of this “lack of online content” criticism that we received from many sources years ago, we started putting our entire issues online in 2005. Now there is a lot of content on our site for subscribers. They can now access their entire newsletter Online at our website. Therefore, I have removed your sentence from my revision below: REVISION: The Caretaker Gazette is a bi-monthly newsletter connecting property owners wanting caretakers and/or housesitters for their property. Homeowners pay to advertise their property caretaking positions, and potential caretakers pay to advertise in their Situations-Wanted section. Subscribers are normally potential applicants or homeowners searching for a caretaker, and pay for their subscription. In addition to the ads, it carries profiles of some caretakers and a Letters to the Editor section. An online version of the newsletter is also available for the same subscription fee, and all subscribers receive email updates every week. Prospective subscribers can check previous listings from back issues online. It is the only publication in the world that covers the property caretaking field. In recent years, positions outside the United States have been an increasing share of the advertised opportunities. The newsletter was launched in 1983 with 200 subscribers. In 1993, when the newsletter had 500 subscribers, it came close to folding when the original publisher retired. The subscriber list and rights to the name were purchased by the current publisher, Gary C. Dunn, who has expanded the readership to 10,000 subscribers in all 50 states and 80 countries, the majority of whom are over age 50. REVISION: Dear GRBerry, I forgot to include these two NEW YORK TIMES articles as References for you: YOUR HOME; Maintaining A 2d Home From Afar By JAY ROMANO Published: August 8, 1999 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E6DC1430F93BA3575BC0A96F958260

Couples Who Run the House for Others By JULIE BICK Published: October 1, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/business/yourmoney/01couple.html?ei=5088&en=4f9c5da4f642f196&ex=1317355200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all Garycdunn 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please try again

OK GRBerry, I followed your advice, and placed my revisions on the user page. Thanks again for your advice. Garycdunn 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't use the article page for discussion. Please only edit the article text on it. The Talk page ("discussion" tab at the top) is for talking about the article, the primary page (in user space, the "user page" tab at the top) is for the actual content. Use each for its intended purpose, and it will be much easier for me to work with you.

I got too confused trying to figure out what changes you had made, so just flipped it back before you added other versions to the tab. The "history" tab can be used to see any prior version, or the differences between two versions. This useful feature is lost when multiple different copies exist on the same version. GRBerry 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)