User talk:DoriSmith/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

John R. Talbott

This is regarding WP:Articles for deletion/John R. Talbott

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you.} Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking at your contribution to the AfD on this and was somewhat flummoxed by your conclusion that the subject's notability is "borderline (as are most fiction writers)". I set a pretty high bar for notability and am curious as to your reasoning. Also I found the WorldCat comparison, which is your "proprietary" measure, very interesting but also a little flawed as it compared a writer of computer guides to an author of popular economics books. I am curious to learn more about your reasoning and viewpoint. Drawn Some (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If I had said that, it would have been curious. What I wrote was:

"WP:CREATIVE: He's borderline here (as are most non-fiction writers)."

Which, imo, is the case. Most non-fiction writers with WP pages met WP:ACADEMIC, not WP:CREATIVE. And yeah, the comparison isn't perfect, but it does compare authors of the same general genre: popular current non-fiction.

But my overall point is something I still absolutely stand behind: unless there are going to be many many people coming here wanting to know more about this person's life, then (imo) he should be able to say he doesn't want a WP page. If we want to have articles on his books, then fine—that's different. If the books meet WP:BK, then let's have articles on them. But unless someone is no-questions-about-it-notable (e.g., neither of us had to Google him), I'll always lean towards giving the subject the privacy he desires. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying so hard to get the quote right I blew it, but you know I knew what you had said because I said computer guides and popular economics. WP:CREATIVE specifically includes both academics and authors. There are additional criteria for academics that basically open the door to any academic who has published enough books (whether or not they are important books) or if they have been cited sufficiently (and that is not defined). I would think a better comparison here would be to someone like the author of Freakonomics (whose name I don't know either even though he is probably notable).

I do "proprietary" tests too, to make sure that I am not completely blowing a determination that someone is not notable by the guidelines, for instance, Google hits aren't a criteria but if there are 45,000 hits and I haven't found any reliable resources I'm probably not looking in the correct manner. I also try to step back and ask myself if I would expect something to be notable or not using common sense, just like when I use a calculator, I ask myself if the answer even makes sense as I could have made a decimal error or other typo.

If I am interpreting you correctly, you think someone should be allowed to say whether or not they have an article here even if they have published several books, given multiple television and print interviews, etc. if you don't know their name, I guess meaning it is not a household word? That I would disagree with, someone who is not on the tip of your tongue may be on the tip of mine, or on the tip of a billion people in China. Like someone said the other day, most Americans could not name the Prime Minister of Australia. My guess is only a small minority could name the Prime Minister of Canada or the President of Mexico, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable and should be allowed to dictate whether or not they have a Wikipedia article anymore than they have the right to ask the Washington Post not to do articles about them. Drawn Some (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How about, in general, if the name is known by people who aren't in the field? For instance, I was able to remember the name Steven Levitt off the top of my head, and I'm not an economist, and it would definitely be true for the PMs of countries. Similarly, there are a lot of best-seller lists, some of which are much more meaningful than others. Freakonomics was on the New York Times Best Seller list, unlike any of Talbott's works.

While it's clear that consensus is against me on this, I really suspect what's going on is just contrariness. If this guy had written a puff piece autobio about himself and it went to AFD, everyone and their brother would be !voting to delete it. But because he wants it gone, a guy none of us had heard of last week is suddenly hugely notable. Some examples: Articles for deletion/Chuck Easttom, Articles for deletion/Neil P. Munro, Articles for deletion/Richard Fountain, and Articles for deletion/Philip A. Haigh. Not all of those should have been deleted. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is against you but you're not the only one who ignores the guidelines and policies and gives an opinion based on their own criteria at AfD. I do think it would be better for people to work to change the guidelines rather than just ignore them because it creates a lot of friction on the board and makes it difficult to achieve consensus. Drawn Some (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is against me—I've agreed with that statement. However, I strongly disagree that I'm "[ignoring] the guidelines and policies"—hell, so far as I can tell, I'm about the only person on that page who actually read and linked to the policies/guidelines. Because the policies are so vague ("many," "significant," etc) too many editors make up their own criteria and act like it's policy ("there doesn't seem to be anything libelous or even negative in there," "Obanomics translated into Chinese & Japanese & Korean," "I don't see how he can claim not to be a public person," "I wonder if there is some hidden story here, because this just not make sense," etc). In the larger scheme of things, I think he's of borderline notability, and therefore, deserves the privacy he requested. And I wrote that because I believe that that's what policy says. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the guidelines are sometimes vague, as in "many significant libraries". I think they are deliberately vague and if you believe they shouldn't be as vague as they are I agree with you wholeheartedly. Out of curiosity, how would you define "many significant libraries" if it were up to you to define it, or would you reject that particular measure completely because it is vague or inappropriate? Drawn Some (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a bit, I honestly don't believe a line can be drawn where all agree that those on one side of the line are notable and those on the other aren't. Which means that it's always going to be on a case by case basis, unfortunately, and as different editors with (and without) different agendas show up to different AFDs, we'll get different results. So it goes... Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That definitely is the reality of how it works! Drawn Some (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello DoriSmith! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Shikhs11

Hi! Dori. It's a pleasure of being called as a wikipedian.Thank You. I'll keep on writting on -: Indian Premier League, Disney Channel India, Cricket, Delhi(India) Regards, Shikhs11 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...cause you beat me to it at Asian Tour. Nice work! Drmies (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem; it's nice to have more than one of us doing the grunt work. BTW, did you notice that User:Asiantour is now blocked? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 May 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmzadeh

I appologize regarding the wrong deletion criteria which I used on Toppenish High School. I used the template and made a mistake. I didn`t know how to stop it. as far as User:Liuyao liu and User:Metom27 I dod make the mistake of writing on there page instead of wall. I didn`t know the diffrence at that time.--Rmzadeh (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NOSA

I looked at, and read up on the template descriptions the best I could and I removed advert and COI. Regarding COI, I can assure you I have no conflict of interest. I use the Persian library portal regularly and that is how I am familiar with it and why I decided to make it my 1st article in Wikipedia. As for advertisement, I tried to make it as natural as I could. I do not see what section looks like an add or which part is not supported by fact. I would appreciate it if you could let me know which sections looks like an ad and also any improvements you can offer to make it more neutral. there is no contested point of view in the article and no personal opinions. I actually used a list of pre-existing companies in Iran to make this article and pretty much followed their lead. companies such as Chargoon (who use the coordinate system for their head office) and Pars Online. now I understand the article needs work and I'm hoping other Iranian university students who use the system will fix it in time, but it is only 48 hours old.--Rmzadeh (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I just made a few more changes, I added 2 links to see also that are very relevant and some new sources to external link which I I or someone else will hopefully work into the article soon enough. thanks for the advise and the links to guidelines. --Rmzadeh (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that editor initially created NOSA in July 2007 which was promptly speedily deleted. Comments above were about his recreation of the article in May 2009.

Edits to Grenada Dove Article

I noticed that you edited the reference section. Why are some references in line, some are on the number system, and some have been deleted entirely but are still in the article? Why did you make these changes? 149.149.142.59 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question and I think I figured out the reference list. Thanks for the edits.149.149.142.59 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Truebeast

I moved as many references inline as possible. Some of the references, unfortunately, didn't have sufficient information to turn them into inline cites, and those I left as they were. Glad you liked the end result! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See also User:Truebeast (Talk, Contribs).

Checkmate (film)

Hi there. I've reverted an edit of yours because it didn't seem to be vandalism to me, although I might have missed something. Perhaps that warning on their talk page was not warranted? Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that it was the third time he'd added it within one hour (J.delanoy reverted the previous two instances), I still believe that it was vandalism. At that point, he should (imo) have moved to the talk page and discussed the additions rather than just adding them over and over. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Eddie Willner

You denied the request for article creation for this man arguing that, in spite of being 1) An Auschwitz survivor of note, 2) A US Army Major, 3) A Vietnam veteran (along with various lifetime activities, such as being a mason, etc), his life was not "significant." A major, you note, is "six ranks below a general."

First of all, a major is THREE ranks below General Grade Officer. That aside, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.106.22 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This assertion is absurd: not only is a major a field grade officer, but the man's story is compelling, and unique. Compare him with many other American army majors who have wikipedia pages in spite of having far less 'notable' lives (example found within 30 seconds via wikipedia search: Major Henry Hancock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.106.22 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the article's history, I declined it for the reason "AFC decline—on hold > 24 hours." Everything else you're referring to was written by Alexrexpvt (talk · contribs) (see this diff), as he told you himself. He put it on hold at 08:16, 3 June 2009; I just set its status to declined 31 hours later. Or in other words, you might want to discuss this with him, not me. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eddie Willner.

Deleted Article

Hello Dori.

How are you? I just thought I'd get back to you about my article that was proposed for deletion a while back. Do you think I should recreate it in my sandbox?

--Scottcampb (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You could do that, or you could just make it into your user page. I think that's probably the best approach. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding Scott Campbell (blogger), WP:Articles for deletion/Scott Campbell (blogger), and WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 12#Scott Campbell (blogger).

Edenton Bell Battery

The reason I removed two of the maintenance templates is because they should'nt be there. One says it has little or no topics linking to it and when I counted it had 18 all together linking to the article. The other says the article says it isnt notibal enough to be on Wikipedia which is VERY untrue. The Edenton Bell Battery exsisted because of the devotion of the citizens and institutions of Edenton, North Carolina who donated most of the towns metal bells to the Confederacy to be melted down and made into cannon for the Confederacy and Battery and many men from Edenton volunteered to serve in the Battery and fought with distinguished service in a few major battles of the civil war. Saying its not notable is just offensive to everyone involved with the battery and to people all over the south and especially Edenton, North Carolina. Those templates need to be removed because they have NO reason to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Creasy (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you say there are eighteen incoming links to Edenton Bell Battery if no one else can see them. Follow this link—what result do you get? I get a page that says it has zero incoming article links, i.e., the very definition of an orphaned page. That's why it has the {{orphan}} tag.

Regarding notability, I'm using Wikipedia's definition as seen at WP:Notability. Sadly, I see nothing in that guideline saying "none of the above apply if the people of Edenton care deeply about the topic." Besides {{notability}}, you might want to also look at WP:Notability (local interests), which gives some guidance on how a page can be of more than just local interest.

So long as the article qualifies for those two tags by WP policies, I'll keep adding them. Just saying, "but I don wan them to apply!" doesn't make any difference. If you can improve the article, go for it—if not, then let's just delete it and be done with it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

You'd better watch your step. You're under review by Wikipedia. We're watching you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia editor has been flagged for watching purposes.:p Sarah 03:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Help, Help, I'm being repressed!" – Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to ANI: "Under review by Wikipedia?" and User:Debora999.

RE: your signature...

I noticed it at AN/I. It is a bit on the big and scary side...would you mind scaling down the font size a bit? I'd surely appreciate it... thanks... Auntie E (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... I don't see it that way, but I've bumped it down a smidge. Can you tell me what browser/platform/version you're running? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

rheda 5

Hello fellow Californian. I am back from a trip and see that you picked up for Martin. Let me know if the sources I propose below are reliable enough. It is not my fault that the institute in charge does not do their hisotry pre 2000 but I am willing to scan and send pages of a book if that is what it takes to convince the gatekeepers that this is real information. As I understand it this verification is what stands between current status and an OK. Also I repeat that a university press book ought to be trustworthy as a source, and that is indeed cited. In any case please clarify and I shall do my best.

RE: No, not really. The Wikipedia links are not what we call reliable. What we need is a reliable source which verifies that she has won this award. This could be a newspaper article, or an official website of the organisation. English is preferred, but Portguese would be fine too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Martin. The website for Jabuti began in 2000! and does not backsell. In Portuguese, I have a book of the history of the prize which I can cite to you, or even SCAN the relevant page. Also I can scan some news from infancy of Internet. (I found one link of an old article but it is about a different book and only mentions nthe prize en passant). Finally, the link to UT press book in English goes to the introduction which, as the my earlier descriptor indicated, does mention the prize. That should be "reliable", no? Let me know if you can receive scans to be able to verify visually or just go with Prof. Dunn's mention. Obliged. This time I remember to sign.User:Charlesaperrone (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

201.17.98.51 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All I did was set the status on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Regina Rheda from "on hold" to "declined" after it had been on hold over 24 hours (as stated in my edit summary). In this particular case, it had been on hold over 3 days; by that time, we figure that the creator has lost interest. As to what it would take to make it into an article, you should follow up with MSGJ. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Not sure how to message people on wiki yet, sorry if i have done this wrong. You reviewed the African pygmy dormouse page that i created and declined it as it was part of se-caresheets.webs.com..... i created this website along with southern-exotics.webs.com and wrote all the information on both of the sites, hence why is used the same text for wiki.

If there is still a copyright issue would it be possible for me, as the author of the content on se-caresheets.webs.com to give permission for it to be used on wiki?

Regards

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeames (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few different issues here, so I'll answer them one at a time:

• It's true that because the text on the page is online elsewhere that it can't be used on WP without you explicitly giving permission. You can find directions on doing that at the page on donating copyrighted materials.
• Additionally, the text isn't encyclopedic style:
  • For instance, the line "There is a 'tan' variety found as far as i am aware only in America,"—a Wikipedia article should never refer to the writer. Instead, it should refer to the outside source where the information was found.
  • Your article doesn't have any sources that you didn't write. Instead, articles should have verifiable reliable sources for everything they state.
• And finally, there's already a stub of an article on Graphiurus murinus, which can be found at Woodland Dormouse. If these are the same animal (that is, the African Pygmy dormouse is the Woodland dormouse) then there should only be one article, which is why I said you should add on to that one instead.

I hope this helps! If there's any further advice I can give, just let me know. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to WT:Articles for creation/African Pygmy Dormouse.

MY article for creation

Hey there, could you please accept my page because I have loads of imformation regarding my topic and the editor for Fight Night Round 4 wont let anyone update the page and thats why there is basically nothing on the page so could you please accept it?Thanks Stevob7, 22nd, June, 09. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevob7 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

When two editors disagree on the content of an article, the answer is never to have two articles. Have you tried discussing it with the other editor on their talk page or on the article's talk page? That's where I'd start. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding WT:Articles for creation/Fight Night 4 and Fight Night Round 4.

entry submission question

Hi Dori – I have submitted an entry about NJVC several times and it has been declined as an advertisement each time. I have carefully reviewed the entry each time and have revised and reduced the entry to include only facts about the company. I have had the entry reviewed by others who have successfully submitted entries in the past and have been told that entry seems appropriate and acceptable.

I am hoping that you can provide me with a more detailed explanation as to why the entry is being declined. Other postings on Wikipedia seem to have much more information and even include marketing/advertising language. Can you please identify specific sections of the entry that need to be removed or inform me of changes I can make to ensure that the entry meets all of the criteria?

Thanks for your consideration.

Scjoyce86 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to give me more information on this, as I don't know what NJVC stands for and I don't see anything like that in your edit history. Is this from AFC or CSD? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dori - Thank you for the response. The entry is an AFC and I have included the entry content bleow. Any guidance you can provide is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

content here clipped

Scjoyce86 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A link to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NJVC would have sufficed, thank you.

The problem, simply, is that the AFC contains no third-party sources. Has anyone ever written about your company? That is, has your company done anything newsworthy? If not, then NJVC simply isn't sufficiently notable. If yes, then the article needs to cite those. The two sources currently given don't meet WP's requirements; sorry. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales Benchmarking article

Dori,

Hello. You recently reverted an entry that I had made to the external links section of the article on Sales Benchmarking. If you look at the very first historical version of the Sales Benchmarking Wikipedia entry, you will see Sales Benchmark Index is mentioned in the links section at the end. Somewhere along the line, a user known as SanfranciscoOffice1 removed that entry and placed Alexander Group instead.

Sales Benchmark Index is owned by three gentlemen that are experts at Sales Benchmarking (Greg Alexander, Mike Drapeau and Aaron Bartels). They wrote the only book on the subject "Making the number" and you can visit the website at www.makingthenumber.com. Many sales consulting companies such as Alexander Group (no relation to Greg) have tried to capitalize on the success of Sales Benchmark Index by proposing that they are experts as well but have not gone to the lengths of sharing knowledge and practical advice.

Please consider the request to reinstate Sales Benchmark Index's website as a link. The Benchmark association that is cited (SFEBA) is a questionable source. The APQC.org is a much more respected and recognized authority in all aspects of benchmarking. I would recommend including them at a minimum and replacing SFEBA with APQC.org as the preferred option.

The number of true experts in sales benchmarking number less than 10 worldwide outside of academia. Until we can get some academic references, it would benefit readers of this article to have access to individuals such as Greg Alexander, Mike Drapeau and Aaron Bartels. If you are unable to meet any of the requests above then please consider removing AGI since they are simply trying to associate themselves with this topic.

Thank you, --Salesbenchmark (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Salesbenchmark

Have you read through Wikipedia's guidelines on external links? If so, I think you'll see that your site doesn't meet the standard. Additionally, you probably want to check on Wikipedia's guidelines on usernames, as yours is against policy as well. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

editor review

Hello - I've left some comments on your contributions, specifically on your interest in RfA, at your editor review page. If you have questions or need help, feel free to ask. :-) KrakatoaKatie 03:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, ma'am! (although I thought I had been tagging user talk pages when the user had been vandalizing, so I'll have to go back and check on that). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost AfD

Thank you, it's nice to see someone who can separate their personal opinions about DreamHost from objective reality. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you take that back! (Oh wait, that was a compliment...) Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. You looked at the sources and said, "The company is eeeeeeeevil, but notability has been established." Other people look at the sources and say, "I don't care how many sources company apologists supply, I hate them, so notability has not been established." I appreciate objectivity, even when I fall short of it myself...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dori, I appreciate your relatively objective assessment too. Of course, Sarek's statement above is inaccurate, the quoted statements were never made nor represent facts. Company apologists want to say things in the article without supporting it with sources. Then they want to delete well-sourced statements they don't want the article to include. Several people said they questioned the notability, and fwiw, one of the founder pages, Sage Weil, was deleted. The sourcing of the article is significantly improved since I got involved, as looking at the edit history shows. Pro-company COI editing has long been a problem there. Judas278 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Was it appropriate in your opinion, for Sarek to relocate comments at the AfD? Although he moved some of his (incidentally some of the first personally critical comments), he also left some of Scjessey's similarly critical comments in place, as well as making it impossible to follow. Judas278 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For the compliment above, I thank you, also. As for the rest: my perception is that this has been an ongoing controversy between several people over a length of time, so I'd like to stay out of it. My opinion on this AFD was solely about the AFD; I'd prefer to not get involved in all the related hoohah. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Trevor doerksen rewritten

I have rewritten Trevor doerksen as promised and moved it to MoboVivo. Let me know if you have any further problems with the article that I need to fix.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it could still use some fine-tuning, e.g., an infobox (maybe {{Infobox Dotcom company}}?), and copyediting (such as fixing the broken stub tag), but it's much better than it was. Thanks for your work! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson

Hello, back in June you readded many banner tags to David Ferguson. Several of the tags appear to have been addressed and I have removed them. Several others remain, but the reason remains unclear. Can you provide additional information to help others improve the article by providing clarification or acknowledging that your concerns have been addressed? here Thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get over there as soon as I have more than a few minutes... — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sales Benchmarking article

Dori,

I read the rules on external links and I am unclear on why the existing link from Alexander Group meets the criteria where the site www.salesbenchmarkindex.com fails to meet it. If the external link page should be more relevant then I would suggest http://www.salesbenchmarkindex.com/content/view/133/286/

It contains a review of internal, external, process and other benchmarking resources that would be valuable to someone investigating the topic further.

I understand my user name may not be totally compliant either based on your note but I wasn't sure what to type in so I just used something simple to remember. I can create another one. Can we agree to include some external link to salesbenchmarkindex or at a minimum to remove the AGI link?

Thank you,

--Salesbenchmark (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Salesbenchmark

I don't believe that I ever said that the Alexander Group link was acceptable, so feel free to delete it if that's what you think is appropriate. As I'm sure I've said previously, the best place to discuss this is on the article's talk page, where you'll get feedback from people who watch that article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Pillsbury's article (Pending review)

Dear Ms. Smith,

As a follow up to your decision regarding the Michael Pillsbury's wiki article that is still pending approval (you mentioned that the article violates some copyright and needs more reliable sources and notability aspect), please consider the following points:

1] this WSJ article (http://www.taiwandc.org/wsj-2005-06.htm) was a long page one career profile of Michael Pillsbury with his picture - suggesting high notability and reliability for claims about influence of his China writings, his role at the Pentagon and his Afghanstan role. I have added a link to the web site for this article.

2] the dozen or more third party references provided are all highly reliable and all included specific, detailed quotations about Pillsbury's role in an Oxford University Press book in 2008 by the former Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, a Harvard JFK case study of the Stinger decision, two Penguin books on Afghanistan by Pulitzer prize winner Steve Coll, a Random House book by CIA officer Milton Bearden, a Knopf book, a Routledge book, and a Brookings book among others.

3] The comments about Pillsbury's two books from NDU Press do not appear on the web, they are relevant to both reliability and notability since the authors of the commetns include two former secretaries of defense, two different deputy secretaries, and professors at Harvard, Princeton and Penn, as well as the former US Ambassador to China and teh former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. They are not copyright violations because NDU Press book are not copyrighted - they are US Government documents for public use.

4] On notability, the 2000 book on CHina by Pillsbury has been translated and published in China by the New China News Agency Press. This is rare for any US author on Chinese matters.

I would appreciate your assistance on reviewing this article again and provide necessary guidance.

Sincerely, Oleksiy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, forget about the notability issue—it's clear (at least to me) that so long as the statements made in the piece are verified, he's sufficiently notable. So, now the problem is the sources. As to the other points:

• The book blurbs are useless, because they're all about how wonderful the books are. This isn't an article about the books; it's about the person. That's where it (imo) needs more work.
• The type of work needed on the references is best exemplified by the paragraph that starts with "According to the book Living the Policy Process:". A quote follows that, but it's not clear where the quote ends—is it just that paragraph? Is it just part of the paragraph? That paragraph plus the three following?
• The last two paragraphs of the article are confusing. Something is attributed to historycommons.com, but the references are both to a book. Additionally, it's not clear what it is (if anything) he's being credited with having done.
• It would be beneficial to have additional sources that focus on the person—after all, he's the subject of the article—and less on what he's written or witnessed or who he worked for.
• The references still need cleaning up, which I was hoping you could do by following my examples. For instance, the books without isbn numbers need them. It appears that footnotes 3 & 5 are the same book, as are 2 & 7. These should be combined in the same way that I did 8, 9, 12 & 13.
• Footnote 17 is repeated in the article itself.
• Footnote 6 needs filling out. Author's name? What is '1971-198'?
• More internal wikilinking would be helpful, such as to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (and should he be included on that page?).
• The infobox needs to be like those of people with similar articles. Here's a few I just dug up: John Rood, Barry Steven Jackson, Curtin Winsor, Jr., Karl Zinsmeister, Adam Garfinkle, Stephen Hadley. In particular, it should use something like {{Infobox Person}} or {{Infobox Officeholder}}.
• The article will need to be added to categories, so think about which ones would be appropriate. The best place to start might be at Category:United States government officials.
• Should there be any navigation boxes added to this article? A couple of examples: {{Cold War}} and {{Foreign relations of the United States}}.

Well, I suppose that list is as good a place to start as any... Good luck! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Advice

Dear Dori Smith:

I ask that you remove your tags of neutrality and a need for more references on the Michael Pillsbury article that I have been creating. What I have just done is provided:

1] added a quotation and a reference to a second Oxford University Press book by the UN Undersecretary in charge of Afghanistan negotiations on Pillsbury's role

2] Identifed the position of the author of the first referenced Oxford Press book to be Philip Heymann, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General - [this book has nearly 100 pages about Pillsbury]

3] provided a link to Pillsbury's published reply to bias in Ho Soyoung "Panda Slugger" you added as further reading - doesn't a neutral point of view mean having both links?

4] clarified, simplified and trimmed down the section on Pillsbury's role in the Stinger decision and made it part of the biography section

5] as one tag suggested, I added links to several other Wikipedia articles - such as "Operation Cyclone" and "FIM-92 Stinger Missile" and others

6] trimmed the section on Osama Bin Laden asking for US weapons in 1985 - but this is a very important issue and the referene is to a Pulitzer Prize winning author's new book.

7] I also provided a link to this Wikipedia article that has several references Pillsbury's book on China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_dissemination_management

What more can I do as a "newbie" to get these tags you placed removed?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 04:33, 25 June 2009

Given that you're what WP refers to as a SPA, I think that the {{POV}} and {{BLP sources}} tags are both fairly reasonable. I think that over time, as more editors with varying backgrounds work on the article, it will achieve a level of balance. Right now, though, it's nearly entirely based on what you've written, so it's going to sound like a single person's take on the subject. Don't worry about it too much, honestly—or at least that's my thought. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution?

Dear Dori Smith, I have found two more verifiable references about Michael PIllsbury, which makes about 15 total I provided. The two new ones are a book by Scribners press (Peter W. Rodman, More Precious Than Peace: The Cold War and the Struggle for the Third World, Scribers, 1994, p. 337), and a peer reviewed journal article in Political Science Quarterly (ALAN J. KUPERMAN, The Stinger Missile and U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan, Political Science Quarterly, on line at http://www.psqonline.org/free/kuperman.pdf). However, I need your advice how to remove your tags disputing a neutral point of view and the allegation of conflict of interest. The WP policy on Point of View says the editor who disputes neutrality must place her reasons on the talk page, but there are no reasons posted. It stresses "high quality reliable sources" of which there are 15, including a Pulitzer prize winning book, two Oxford Press books, etc. You removed the 12 examples of praise for Pillsbury's books from Professors at Harvard, Princeton, Penn, and 3 former Secretaries of Defense. Readers now do not have the benefit of those sources on the quality and importance of his two books on China. Is that the core of our "neutrality dispute?" You want to delete 12 re liable sources on this man's work on China, and instead you post for "further reading" a reference-less article that calls his scholarship "dubious" in the subtitle? IF the issue of neutrality is whether this man's scholarship is "dubious" then you should restore the 12 quotations. If there is another issue, it seems to be WP policy that you state it clearly so that other editors can see your concern. I am the kind of newbie that Wikipedia says its wants -- willing to assemble high quality references for a subject who is notable and certainly willing to accept the need to "wikify" the article. However, it was another editor, not you, who created this article from my very rough draft. If you pposed it from the start, please give your reasons so I have a chance to help, rather than adding these tags that the WP policy says "should not be used as a badge of shame" or to "warn" readers about the article. Frankly, I would ask for dispute resolution now, but th at seems premature if I can provide high quality references to meet you whatever your concerns may be.

Here is the policy that I found about dispute over neutral point of view:

Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion on this over to Talk:Michael Pillsbury, because, well, that's where this sort of discussion is supposed to go. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for another editor

Can I request another editor to go over the Michael Pillsbury's article and eliminate those tags that you left? You moved this discussion to the article's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Pillsbury but after a couple of my comments, I am still awaiting a response. What is going to happen to those tags if nobody will be willing to comment or reevaluate them? Do those tags lower the article's Google ranking in search results? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy at the moment, and given that I'm a volunteer, that's just the way it goes.

As far as your question about "Do those tags lower the article's Google ranking in search results"--why do you ask? And why does it matter? I admit that I'm baffled by your questions about the tags and the article's Google ranking, and I'd like to know more. It sounds like you have issues and questions about more than just a simple WP article, and it's hard to answer them without some background. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked about Google, because I want to be proud of my work and want the wiki article to be as informative and helpful to others as possible.

--Artdriver (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My Comments On Your Decision

Dear Dori Smith,

I feel quite defeated and discouraged by your making light of the tags you placed. I see from your other edits and the protests on your talk page that I am not alone in my reaction. Hopefully, you believe you are doing your best to maintain quality for WP, and that other editors have lower standards. I have read a lot of other articles in the past two weeks, and find it amazing how filled with praise for their subjects most of them are, and how few third party references most of them cite. Pillsbury was not praised once in this article,and there is citation for every point. You asked why I am worried about the article's Google rank. The answer is that no other editors but you and me seem to be interested in this subject, and my guess is that one of the reasons is the low ranking Google has put on the article, so that no potential future editor is going to find it on a search. If no one finds it, no one is going to try to improve it. The tags of NPOV, COI, and your tag for verification all tend to suggest to potential future editors that it is a bad article, so they may feel "why bother?" I hope you did not intend to convey this? You not only disputed its neutrality, but also directly accused me, the newbie volunteer author, of a conflict of interest, not once but twice. Yet my role was simply to do research on third party references about Pillsbury and Afghanistan. To understand your views, I read your talk page and found a comment on another article about being "sick" of SPV/ single point of view editors, yet aren't these SPV people are crucial to proposing WP's 3 million articles? We all need to follow Wikipedia policies. Neutral volunteers are much needed, and ought to be encouraged and mentored by experienced editors, not have our motives questioned. The backlog for articles with tags like you added has reached over 50,000!! It may take two years for anyone else to get around to helping you and me with this Pillsbury article, if my hunch is righ t about your 6 tags reducing the Google rank and the "findablity" and credibility of this article to other potential editors we need to wikify it . Frankly, I created the article because it is a timely subject due to the current Afghanistan situation. After I drafted it, I was grateful to see all your improvements. But keeping your tags after improvements were made appears to contravene Wikipedia policy. I see from your talk page that you have been very harsh on other articles. Your fellow editors have often successfully opposed your harshness. Your pushing for deletion of the SPV work of a 14 year old on the Civil War Edenton unit was opposed by two editors, one of whom [Buster] offered to mentor the 14 year author, rather than what you did, to push for deletion. Other editors, not me, will have to decide over time if your standards for tagging fit WP policies. For example, you imply I should not further improve the art icle because you say I have a single point view, lack neutrality, and have a conflict of interest, yet my effort consisted solely of quoting many third party references. Did I express any opinion on Pillsbury, China, Afghanistan? No, I just quoted from the 15 or more references, and could not find any others. Who is going to edit this article when it is ranked so low on Google that no one can find it on a search of the subject of Afghanistan? You wrote not to worry about the tags - but they cannot come off because it sits in a backlog with 50,000 other tagged articles! In response to your tags, I added more references, and I hope you remove that "verification" tag; you improved very nicely the style of all citations, and I hope you remove your tag on citations style to reflect your own good work; your tag of a possible conflict of interest remains, but there is no evidence for it. How can there& nbsp;be a "conflict" in an article that consists of verbat im quotations from world class references such as two Oxford University Press books, two Penguin press books by a Pulitzer prize winner, a Harvard case study, etc? Will you remove that tag if I pile on more references? What will it take to make the article "neutral?" Am I disqualified from volunteering any more on this article? To sum up, I encourage you reconsider whether you are following Wikipedia's policies on tagging and on accusing me, or are out of step with your fellow editors by leaving so many tags on an article that is built mainly of quotations from verifiable, third party sources. I admit I may be wrong about your tags being excessive - maybe all new articles are supposed to be treated this demeaning way with so many tags, and being dumped in the backlog of 50,000 articles Maybe it is commong to impugn the originators motives? Maybe it is good for tags to be left on in spite of improvements? I have learned a lot from this experience, as will others who read about my discouragement at your hands. And I am not a 14 year old, like the other author whose work you wanted to delete.

--Artdriver (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible Solution

Dori Smith

In the interest of achieving a class A article some day after wikifying has been done, wouldn't an easy solution be for you to delete anything in the Pillsbury article you believe is not neutral, lacks sources, or shows a conflict of interest, then delete your tags? My contribution was too detailed already? Most WP BLPs seem to be less than a page - reliable, relevant, notable. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor Artdriver left this message and I haven't seen him edit on WP since. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)