User talk:William Meyer/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, William Meyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Nevhood 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_Meyer/Archive #1

[edit] Deletion of Two Pages in Process

{{helpme}}

I am a first-time editor in Wikipedia.

I object to the two pages I am editing being removed while I am developing them. The problem is that I don't know how to make the changes necessary to keep the pages alive.

Please send me specific suggestions about how to prevent the deletion of the pages, and I'll get to the editing lickety split.

Thanks

William Meyer 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)William MeyerWilliam Meyer 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

_ _ Hi, W'm, i'm the nasty deletionist whose ProD you complained about.
_ _ First, i feel obligated to make you aware that no one will respond to your {{helpme}} as it stands. (That may show a problem in how the instructions abt it are stated; if i don't leave you a note saying i've "dropped a flag on the play" it would help if you remind me to.) If you want more help than what i'm about to offer, do an edit where you put the 4 braces and the 6 letters between them alone on a line (ignoring all the stuff in pointy brackets). Both the way the welcome msg codes it, and the way i did in the first sentence of this graph (in each case, what you see in the edit pane), are ways of telling you, on the rendered preview or non-editing page, how to call for help, without saying it "out loud" in the course of telling you. By copying it from the edit page (instead of from the rendered version of the page), you kept it "wrapped in cotton", or never turned off the safety level.
_ _ More directly to the point, the edit summaries you made since sound to me like they are aimed at making a joint bio for the two (IMO pointlessly), probably due to my expressing myself obtusely. My point about together or apart was less significant than it sounded, and in any case is not about how the article(s) should be written or organized: i wanted to make it clear that, to save everyone time, i counted all of the Web refs that refer to either person, combining those for one with those for the other but counting each in the overlap only once.
_ _ Your removal of the ProD tag is appropriate and can take the pressure off, since i don't think forcing a deadline (5 days of discussion) is urgent, and since i'll probably be the one to add the {{AfD}} tag (which you wouldn't be allowed to remove), if we don't reach agreement abt this. AfD is the gold standard for deletion criteria, in the sense that that is where everything stated elsewhere as policy is converted from general principles into claims as to which policy principles mean something applicable to the article in question. In this case non-notability (insufficient significance) is what's likely to be considered, and while i don't want to take on the project of tutoring you on the subject, i'm willing to suggest that the ideal cram course for you is to look on WP:AfD,
  1. on one hand, following some of the lks that appear (identically) at the top of each discussion, and
  2. on the other, looking at the arguments made for and against, in biographies previously challenged re notability.
(AfD discussions in progress, on WP:Afd itself, are more exciting, but the AfD archives will show the outcomes, which are more important for you than excitement.)
_ _ I'm hesitant about saying WP:CoI is probably also worth your attention (even tho two editors appeared to be instances of it, and you may be asked whether you are free of such conflicts). When CoI gets mentioned, it's hard to keep it from sounding more important than it should be. I mean that the issue in contested deletions is distinct from the then-current content and from the authorship, and rests properly on a single question: is an encyclopedia-worthy article feasible under this title. If the article is written wrong, or a predominant author is hopelessly biased, the remedies are not deletion, but further editing and/or more, less biased, editors. The significance of that goes beyond CoI, and, for example (even tho such cases are quite rare), the principle is admirably illuminated by imagining an article Mud, about boots and mud pies: that article would pretty surely be found un-encyclopedic, but the title is not, and the article should be, rather than deleted, rewritten from scratch, to adequately cover the erosion of rock into mud, adobe, delta formation, metamorphosis of mud into classes of rock, and conceivably, if Drilling mud were too small a topic for its own article, a section on that topic. In our case, it's not worth considering keeping these titles as bios of different people; still, the fact that discarding the content without a deletion is an occasional AfD outcome serves to dramatize the important distinction, between the content at hand and the potential of the topic it addresses or hints at.
_ _ (Ah, good; i wasn't sure of any title, but my guess was good, and may save you some browsing:) WP:NN certainly is also worth your attention. And, especially if i was too terse this time, WP:Google test should offer some insight at least into what i was getting at. Hope this'll at least get you started.
--Jerzy•t 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

W'm,
_ _ Yes, wikis are crucially a tech innovation, but IMO WP is even more crucially also a product of developing the social institutions that enable the tech to do something worthwhile.
_ _ I'm not the touchy-feeliest of editors (e.g., i didn't drop anyone a ProD notice in this, nor have i any confidence that i've ever done so). But even tho i remain skeptical abt the articles, your note made it clear you needed & deserve some help getting on your feet, not least for the sake of keeping WP striving in the right directions.
--Jerzy•t 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Deletion of Jock McKeen Page

Hello William Meyer. It seems another administrator has already done so for you. The reason why the first version of the page was deleted was because the author did not indicate the necessary notability to pass the WP:BIO guideline. Often subjects are encouraged not to write about themselves due to the difficulty of referring to their biography in a third person style. Thank you for rewriting it. At least now it meets the standards much better than its previous state. If you have any other questions feel free to contact me at my talk page again.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with Haven Institute. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

  1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
  2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Leuko 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haven InstituteDeletion

I am editing the Haven Institute webpage, which has been marked for speedy deletion. I will begin by removing the external links to the Haven.ca webpage in the body of the article. I expect this is what has prompted the sudden reaction from the editors.

In addition, I will certainly correct anything that will interfere with this article's integrity for Wikipedia. I am learning as I go ... but I am honest and earnest. Please do not remove the page until I have had a chance to correct it. Thanks. William Meyer 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't the links, it's the whole article and its purpose in WP. I don't actually determine when it gets deleted. An admin will take a look at the reasoning on the article's talk page and make a decision from there. Leuko 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I will put my thoughts onto the article's talk page. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding my reasons for why it should be kept (and my willingness to edit the page) on the Talk page when it was suddenly deleted ... all this took only five minutes ... I would like the opportunity to talk about this ... the Haven Institute page is very similar to the Esalen Institute page, ... they are both nontraditional educational institutions ... I would like the chance to edit this page into a form that is acceptable to Wikipedia. I respectfully request that it be undeleted so I can get to work to do this. I have placed this request in the Deletion Review process. William Meyer 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Haven InstituteREASON FOR REQUEST TO UNDELETE

I have pasted the following sections from the Talk:Haven Institute page to keep the communication trail clear in my Talk page.William Meyer 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from Talk:Haven Institute

I have put in a request for a DELETION REVIEW for the Haven Institute page.

I am relieved that I can now access this Talk:Haven Institute page. When the Haven Institute page was deleted by speedy deletion, the Talk page vanished for me, and I could not access it.

The Haven Institute is an alternative educational institution that has existed since 1983. It has a good reputation, and attracts students from around the world. It is roughly similar to Esalen Institute in that it is a nontraditional school that utilizes seminars and group process in its teaching environment. Since Esalen is listed in Wikipedia, I believe it is appropriate that the Haven Institute also be included.

The reason for the speedy deletion was stated (on the banner that I was able to quickly read before the deletion occured) to be "Blatant Advertising." My intent in writing this article was certainly not to "promote a company, product, group, service, or person" ... Indeed the Haven Institute is owned and operated by a nonprofit society, whose aims are educational in nature. So, this is not a profit group ... it is an organization dedicated to promoting nontraditional educational approaches in a responsible and respectful manner. I believe that their undertaking is worthy, and merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please consider my request, and give me the chance to craft the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to "play ball" ... I just want the chance to finish the job that I started (I have hours into this process at this point). Thanks for considering. Sincerely William Meyer 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Your blank page is at the above link. Please take care of WP:N and try to include as many sources as possible as well as writing the article in a encyclopedic tone without bias. Good luck and feel free to ask for another pair of eyes whenever you feel like it.

Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see a lot of references but can you tell me whether you have any conflicts of interest here? You clearly know the subject very well. For such a long article, and for the others you have written you need to include citations in the text to show where the information comes from. This is a good way to make sure that information is properly sourced because if you can't cite it, you can't include it. Also, I think for a marginally notable institution, this is a very long article and citations will be helpful to you to get the balance right. Remember that this article has already been deleted because of concerns that it may be advertising so its important to get this nailed down before you try and restore this to the main space. Let me know when you have made the citations and I'll have another look and make some pratical suggestions for any required changes. Finally, how specialist are the references? Are the national or local? That's important for verifying notability. The more widespead the coverage the better. I hope this helps - this is much improved and definately on the right path. --Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Spartaz

Thanks for your reply. Glad to hear you think I'm on the right track.
I do not have any conflicts of interest. I am not involved in this Institute other than to write about it. I do know the people involved reasonably well however.
I thought I had included citations in the text in my articles. But apparently I have not done this to your satisfaction. Please show me a place where I am derelict here, and I'll fix it. I have tried to follow Harvard Referencing, and then add a (Smith 2003) indicator in the body of the text that refers to a 2003 article or book by Smith. What am I missing?
You mention this is a very long article. Good information for me. I will cut it down.
I'll let you know when I have cut down the articleand made the citations so that you can offer any further suggestions.
How specialist are the references? Most are reports from journalists who have done articles on The Haven Institute, in newspapers and magazines.
Two articles are from Gabriola Island's newspaper; one more is from Nanaimo newspaper (nearby) and three are from Vancouver/Victoria publications .... both cities are in the same province, but at quite a distance (their coverage is province-wide). Finally, two articles are from a publication in Taipei, Taiwan to back up the international coverage.

William Meyer 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to come back to this another day as I am busy with something else at the moment. I hope that is OK. {you can reply here btw I have the page watchlisted). --Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Humbug

I appreciate your telling me that you are onto something else so I won't think you have disappeared. I have shortened the article considerably, and I have placed the citations in the body of the text ... have I done this correctly?
How does this article look to you now? Better length? Citations correct?
I want to be squeaky clean with these citations/references ... once I know I am doing it 100% properly, I will fix up the other pages I have written to the same standard. So, I value your tutoring.
Many many thanks for your human interaction with me.

William Meyer 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Humbug re: William Meyer/Haven Institute

I have a draft done now that I think might be okay. My questions:

  • 1. How is the length? I could shorten the section "The Haven Institute History" (or remove it completely) if you think the article is still too long.
  • 2. Are the citations correctly done, and appropriate for this page?
  • 3. Any other suggestions?

Thank you for handholding me through this. William Meyer 01:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] To --Spartaz Humbug!

Perhaps you are too busy to deal with my request for help ... if so, please just say so, and I'll seek help elsewhere. I have redone the Haven Institute page, and I would appreciate your eyes on it to see if it looks acceptable.

1. Is it ready to resubmit for use on the Wiki pages?
2. If it is ready, how do I go about putting it on the regular pages? Just do it? Or do I need to ask permission of the review committee that reviewed the original pages that were deleted?
3. Any other comments or suggestions?

Thanks. William Meyer 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the references on the article are a little weak and they are rather dated. Is there nothing more recent you can cite? Otherwise you have done a good job with the rewrite. I think its still a work in progress but we have no deadline for getting this thing done. :-) If you wanted to have it restored to mainspace, I would suggest that you took it back to DRV with a request for consideration. You could just restore it but there is a danger of it being speedied again as recreated content - ideally you need a few more recent sources if you wanted to just restore it without going through DRV. Good luck and let me know what you decide to do. --Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Your comments are very helpful. I agree that there is no deadline ... I want to get it right the first time. I will find some more recent references ... I don't think this will be difficult to find ... just will take some leg work to get them. I'll get more recent references, and then get back to you when I think I have satisfied what you suggested. Best wishes, ... William Meyer 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To --Spartaz Humbug!-- References Enhanced and Updated

I have added more recent references, and cited them in the text. I believe I have satisfied your recent suggestions. How does this look now? Is it ready for mainspace now? William Meyer 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Do you think you are ready to try and have this restored in main space? There are lots of references now. If so, I'll list it for you at DRV. --Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I am ready to try to restore this to main space now. Please list it at DRV for me. What do I need to do? Is there a page I should be watching? Thanks for all your help. William Meyer 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your page is now in main space - I discussed with the deleting admin who had no objections to my dispensing with the DRV. Congratulations on your good work fixing the article. --Spartaz Humbug! 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. Can I simply delete the material from the my User Page now? I have learned a lot, and I am eager to continue working with Wikipedia. I have begun to assemble some more biographical material in anticipation of adding more pages of noteworthy people. I have appreciated working with you. If I can help you sometime (my area is psychology and biography) I would be happy to return the favour William Meyer 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Your page is now in main space - I discussed with the deleting admin who had no objections to my dispensing with the DRV. Congratulations on your good work fixing the article. --Spartaz Humbug! 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. Try WP:TALK#When_pages_get_too_long for guidence in what to do with your old talk page messages. Good luck. You know where to find me if you need any further help. --Spartaz Humbug! 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out ... thanks again. William Meyer 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Gomori

To: Spartaz Hi, it's William Meyer again, on another matter. I just created a page for Maria Gomori that was immediately marked for speedy deletion. I thought I had done my homework with the references, and was confident in putting it up. Indeed, I put up another page yesterday on Albert Trueman which went onto Wiki mainspace with no issue. Please have a look at the page for Maria Gomori and give me any suggestions about what I can do to fix it. She is indeed a noteworthy person ... but the editor seemed to question this. Thanks in advance William Meyer 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Its mareginal but you need to clearly state in the article why she is notable. Tighten that up and its, at worst, an afd. --Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To:Spartaz Thanks for your quick reply. I appreciate your suggestion. I have beefed up the text to show Maria Gomori's importance and notability. Is this enough to satisfy what you suggested? Do I simply wait patiently now for someone to adjudicate and (hopefully) remove the tag on the article? Or should I be more pro-active? Thanks for your advice. William Meyer 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the tag off but generally you should wait for tagged articles to be reviewed by an admin. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


To:Spartaz

Thank you! I appreciate your help. "I owe you one ...." (again).
Just for my information ... you said that I normally "should wait for tagged articles to be reviewed by admin" ... would this simply mean waiting and watching the page to see what happened? William Meyer 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The system is that user A reviews article and tags it. Author B is prohibited from removing the tag but may contest the speedy with hangon followed by explanation on the talk page. Admin C then comes along and reviews the tag and your comments. If they agree with the tag they delete the article. If they disagree they remove the tag and leave a message in the edit summery indicating whether afd is merited. You can read up on the creiteria at WP:CSD but I guess you mostly will have issues with notability - try to assert notability in the articles from the get go to prevent the speedy in the first place. Its not usual for a drive by editor to remove speedy tags and it might have been considered bad form for me to remove the tag because you asked me to review the article - it could have been seen as author removal by proxy. In this case, the speedy was marginal in the first place - the idea of notability was there even if not clearly stated and the tagger has a history (looking at their talk) of not thinking their tags through properly. By the time you had properly asserted notability the article was clearly not a speedy in any shape way or form so taking the tag off was a mercy to whoever is doing the backlog at csd. I wouldn't want to make a habit of it and I'm sure it won't be a problem again now you understand the importance of asserting notability. Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Very clear ... thanks for taking the time to spell this out. I have more tools in my belt now, thanks to you. Best wishes, William Meyer 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)