User talk:Bides time/Archive 1

December 2013 note to contestants

Hi, thanks for signing up as a participant in the ISCB competition. The period for eligible edits will end on January 10 (UTC), less than one month from now. On behalf of the organizers, I would like to encourage you to move forward along this final stretch of the event, and if you have any questions or comments, I would be happy to read them on my talk page or here. Thank you. --Alexbateman (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Foreign Members of the Cambridge Astronomical Society

Category:Foreign Members of the Cambridge Astronomical Society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Archivists Roundtable of Metropolitan New York

Category:Members of the Archivists Roundtable of Metropolitan New York, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen Hawking may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2014 | publisher = Nature.com | date = October 2013 | accessdate = 19 February 2014 }}</ref> <ref>{{cite news | last = Hawking | first = Stephen | title = My Brief History | p. 19</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shannon Bohle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shannon Bohle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles for deletion/Shannon Bohle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct link to discussion page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shannon_Bohle

Your edit summary

re: "Reverted vandalism by TheRedPenOfDoom who made major deletions while the article is under debate. Please contribute to talk page rather than mass deletion." Removing inappropriate content and non reliable sources IS improving the article and MAY be done at any time and IS absolutely appropriate to be doing when the article is under review so that people can easily judge the article on factual basis and not on the blather of inappropriate content covering that actual stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

and as you can see from the history [1] it was not a "mass deletion", but a step by step cleaning with every edit justified by policies and guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

concerns do not need to be raised on the talk page first. Inappropriate content and sources can be removed immediately by anyone. Do not edit war, revert yourself and explain how any of that content is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns on the talk page and allow users to reference citations to statements in question. I have referenced much of them by citing the online CV.

You have not read or understood how we evaluate reliable sources, have you?

And my concerns were clearly outlined in my edit summaries which are there for everyone to read. The fact that you havent, or you have ignored them, or that you dont see how they apply is the issue here, not that I have cleaned up the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a typical vandalism example by TheRedPenOfDoom.

Oh fewgawdsake. If you are going to edit on Wikipedia, read our policies and guidleines when they are provided to you if you want anyone to take you have seriously: WP:RS. someone's online CV is not worth the paper its written on to "verify" anything (other than the fact that they claim something on their CV). Amateur/open source genealogy sites are no more valuable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no vandalism here. As TRPoD suggested, please read WP:RS so that you understand what constitutes a reliable source by our standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

Multiple citations on journal websites, government and academic websites are found doing a simple Google search for her professional affiliations.Bides time (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:BIO. As has been pointed out in the AfD, what's missing is non-trivial coverage. Google hits don't mean much in AfD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Google hits led to WEB PAGES that have been cited.Bides time (talk)

Ah, so that's how Google works. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your allegation of vandalism in a content dispute, and one that is obvious to everyone who has read your allegations is not vandalism, is a personal attack, and a very strong one. Your making that allegation at a noticeboard for administrators is, at the least, poor judgment on your part, because the accusation of vandalism, when completely unfounded (and your accusation is completely unfounded) is a blockable personal attack. If I were an administrator (which I am not), you would be blocked for two days for that personal attack. Please read WP:BOOMERANG before making wild accusations of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is especially true of starting a thread at ANI, as the complainer's conduct is usually put under scrutiny as well. See also WP:BOOMERANG. Please take the fact that your thread was almost instantly closed as evidence of the community's feelings on the manner. Please do not repeat this behaviour, and I strongly suggest taking some time to read some of our community interaction guidelines such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has 9 such warnings on their talk page.Bides time (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That other people have made such complaints does not mean that you should presume them legitimate. People make erroneous complaints all the time here... as witness your false claims about his vandalism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He deleted whole sections (including the professional affiliations) without bothering to try to find any citations when there were citations available. Deleting the biographical history based on genealogical information is going to make it very difficult to find published sources that seem to be acceptable to Wikipedia. Apparently I (or someone) will need to look for obituaries published in newspapers for these individuals that state the person's name. Of course the whole thing would be much easier according to Wikipedia's guidelines if the subject were dead, in which case she would have her own obituary.Bides time (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not getting this, are you. It is the burden of the person wishing to add or restore content to provide appropriate sources, not the person who has noted that they fail our measurements of being appropriate. You cannot tell me to do your work in providing appropriate sources for you. And even if she has famous relatives, that does not entitle her to a page of her own. (and yes, death is sometimes a career move for adding the "I'm on Wikipedia" notch to your bedpost. I however, don't recommend it, as appearing on Wikipedia is really not that important. )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems to me the goal of all contributors is supposed to be to produce something similar to an "online encyclopedia" where everyone contributes to building (not just destroying) content, that is interesting and accurate to read. My point about the biographical comment is to say that family history is often included in biographical articles, but that it seems for living persons, this information is more difficult to get; that perhaps for living persons this standard needs to be relaxed because of this fact.Bides time (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"building the encyclopedia" includes "building the integrity of the encyclopedia" which can be done through the elimination of crap. everyone can contribute in the manner that works for them while they are following the policies and guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

and for living people, we certainly DO NOT lower the standards so they can puff themselves up and say "looky, not only do i have my facebook account, I have a free webhosted page on Wikipedia!". for living people, we in fact have a HIGHER standard of sources for content, for reasons that become pretty obvious. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)