Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Joseph Michael Linsner

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search 
COMMENT: OK. Having now been cited with a WP:COI from User Talk:JJzG for editing MY own page to add links to vetted sources to try and improve it -- I should let everyone know I strongly contest this deletion of my page and I only edited the article to include the following links to vetted sources:

User Talk:JosephMichaelLinsner

STP

Do not delete article Cy-Fi (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy this to the main AFD page. Meters (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2016

Final thoughts on this matter: Unfortunately, as "fans" are logging in to simply read his article, they see the link about it being "nominated for deletion" at the top of the page--and the prompts to comment on the discussion page. Hence, the entires I imagine here to this discussion thread resulting in "Strong keep."

I sat down with Joe and I asked him "Do you really even NEED a Wikipedia page?" and he stated "No, I don't essentially." As it was never authored by him in the first place and hardly portrays what we would like to about him and his career. He merely edited it to include links to more recent works and update his photo. (the previous one was from 2007) Which are the edits he made recently and what started this whole mess in the first place.

Part of the issue with finding and listing independent sources, is that many of these articles on Joe were written in the 90's on printed matter and have no online history. Comic book authors and artists mainly write, draw, pencil, and ink a lot. (Joe even colors his own work 80-85% of the time) They spend so much time behind the drafting table that they don't really have lives which can be reported on via any other source than links to their visual or written work. Which in and of itself, does not leave much time for articles to be written about whether or not they "had a great golf game" or "enjoy long walks in the park" or "what their influences are", etc. so ultimately, we will just accept the decision whatever it is and move on. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not protected, so taking out the edit-request.
@Kristina Deak Linsner and Joseph Michael Linsner: I see you said this earlier, and are repeating this here: "Part of the issue with finding and listing independent sources, is that many of these articles on Joe were written in the 90's on printed matter and have no online history". There is no requirement on Wikipedia that an article that is/can be used as a reference is available online. If you could provide us with definite pointers to those articles (generally: name of periodical, date/issue/etc., pagenumbers), then those could be used to assess notability (even if that means that interested people would need to go get the originals). It does however seem somewhat strange that there is nothing more recent that is available online. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AI, it is protected. Copying over. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you

Yes, @Dirk Beetstra I did view on wikipedia that the "Notability guide" points out that sources DO NOT have to be available online. So whatever I have in printed matter should be fine. I think I just have to learn to include correct Wikipedia citation? Again, trying to learn Wikipedia in a couple days is quite the task. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

I have several articles I am scanning and a few scanned already. I am going to submit them. Not sure to whom though, since I have been cited with a WIKI:COI. How many days do I have to do this before the page is reviewed for deletion?

And additionally, it should not really surprise you that much of this is not availiable online, as Joe and Dawn's popularity was from 1990-2002 and did a slow decline after that, as he continued to work on more mainstream industry projects, currently Harley Quinn for DC Comics, etc. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristina Deak Linsner: thank you for your answer. Notability is not temporary, so no worries if that is all older.
The COI warning is merely a warning/remark. COI does NOT forbid you to edit in any form, as long as you are truthful about it, and that you more strictly adhere to our policies when editing subject with which you have a COI.
Regarding the references, you can just write out the references, there is no need to scan them. '"Bullpen Bulletins", Marvel comics. March 1992' is enough (as note 9 is formatted here). If you then add those to the statements in the text in the article that are being 'proven' by that reference, then that helps a lot (someone will come to format it, quite some here are monitoring the page now). So if the Marvel comic article is telling that grass is green, you would go here on wikipedia to the sentence that says 'grass is green.', and put 'article title, marvel comics, february 1822' directly behind that sentence (if you want to be more technical, you add '<ref>article title, marvel comics, february 1822</ref>', so it becomes a reference immediately). Don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. You can have a look at how it is done in the article I used as an example, Bob Budian (by the way, that article has a bibliography, that would also help in establishing notability). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra thank you. I think I can figure it out from there. If I have any questions I will ask you. I still need to know how many days I have to do this, as I have other obligations outside of Wikipedia. (as do we all I imagine.) I can refer you to a more recent biography, sure. In fact Joe wanted to edit the article to reflect that. But isn't that considered self-promotion?

Still not sure how to submit these edits, or how to handle my citation of a WIKI:COI - as I was being very truthful about the links I posted the first time. I see no difference in this case.

So funny that you should use Mr.Bob Burdian as a reference. I (at first) mistakenly read that to be Bob Burden (Flaming Carrot Comics) and we just saw him about a month ago. Too funny. Thanks. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk)

@Kristina Deak Linsner: Typing out a handful of those references should not take you much more than 10-15 minutes (you said you were scanning, so you must have them ready).
The conflict of interest is purely a 'warning' - again, it does not forbid you to edit. It just urges you to take great care, avoiding promotional text, and an understanding that your comments in discussions like this deletion discussion do need to take into consideration that you are obviously in favour of the subject. That !vote (it is not a strict vote, it is a discussion and the result is based on arguments, not on counting; hence the ' !') should have policy based arguments addressing the issues, not just a (e.g.) 'of course the article should stay, he is awesome' (fan-like arguments).
I will add tags to the article (they will look like '{{fact}}' when you edit) for statements that could use (independent) references. You don't have to solve all of them now (I've suggested to wait a couple of days extra, but it is not going to be much more than a week, possibly less), just replace those 11 characters with your reference. If it does end up deleted, I am willing to 'refund' the article to you to improve in your own time in your userspace, and then submit it at some point when you think that it is properly referenced. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra thank you for explaining. I *think* I have what you mean down. For example, I have WIZARD #120 September 2001. Article: "CUP OF JOE" By Jim McLaughlin. Pg.34 - so you are saying I should cite that as a reference and under that section?

I also have the Sketch magazine #32 - published in 2000 - as feature article, with Dawn on the cover and an article on Joe. Which I DID find an online archive of; http://sketchmagazine.net/sketch-index-31-40/ Am i to understand that also, I should put that into the references section of the article?

By the way, on the WIKI:COI, I believe I understand now. For instance, I do feel that Joe's Eisner nomination should not have been deleted. As it IS an independent source for everything that I can judge one to be. I will add that to the Career section of the article with your permission. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristina Deak Linsner: Preferably, you should add those references to the statements in the text that talk about it. So, the last one: is there anything in the text of Joseph Michael Linsner that is 'confirmed' by what is in http://sketchmagazine.net/sketch-index-31-40/ ? If so, then at the end of the sentence, you add that reference, between those 'ref'-tags (start with '<ref>', end with '</ref>'), it will then automatically appear in the references section.. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra Ok, I think I have the gist of what you mean. I unfortunately, will have to find that article of Sketch magazine #32 to reference the direct quote which confirms the subject. I have to order one, as I do not have a copy on hand. I will however, refer to the WIZARD magazine which I do have on hand and can directly quote.

So, is it ok to edit the article to include the 1997 Eisner nomination in the careers section as previously discussed?

What you are saying is I have about a week. A week from today, or a week from the 13th when it was nominated for deletion? Thanks. (talk) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristina Deak Linsner: If you have a reference for the nomination, you can add it.
Regarding the article of the Sketch magazine #32 - I thought that was in the link (I cannot follow the link where I am). It does not have to be a direct quote, it should confirm the information that is presented in the article here.
I can't promise a week from now - it was nominated on the 13th, generally these discussions run for about a week. I just commented to get more time, it then depends on what the closing admin will decide. As I said, if it gets deleted earlier, I can move it to another space for you to work on, a bit per WP:REFUND. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra I truly appreciate that you asked for the extension. I edited the entry to add in the Will Eisner 1997 nomination and as well I took the time to add in several much needed citations. Let me know if I did ok. Thanks.User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra I guess I didn't do so good. Because I got the message: " Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Joseph Michael Linsner has been reverted."

Other than CBR and Newsarama, what sites are ok to use? Thanks in advance. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk)

I noticed you got reverted. I have re-reverted to that first version of you, making the links into 'true' refs. The bot mainly reverted because you were using the links as regular links (meant to be references). Have a look at what I did to the page .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra thank you for reverting the edits. I see what I did wrong now. They were however, reverted back and marked as "unreliable source" by JzG/Guy. I did not think that CBR, IVG, or Newsarama were merely "fan sites" as proper journalists contribute to them. I see that comic book database is listed as a credited source here on wiki. http://comicbookdb.com/creator.php?ID=1635 But I can tell you that A LOT is wrong with that site in terms of credibility. Joe's page for instance has had an incorrect email address listed on it. And for 3-4 years now I have tried to reach them to change it. It does however list some of the books he has worked on. [redacted] and I will be taking this further. I thank you for all of your help in this matter. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this edit request here rather than on the article's talk page where it belongs? I removed the external link to http://comicbookdb.com/creator_history.php?ID=1635 It appears to me to be a user-generated site and hence not a reliable source. We don't use external links in the article body and that site does not appear to be appropriate for use as a source or in the external links section. Meters (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly does "I will be taking this further." mean? Meters (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bibliography, containing the more noteworthy cases, would just in itself be a good addition (not as a link to an external site). Of course the items in the list should be verifiable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bibliography would indeed be useful, but that particular site does not appear to be a reliable source. The content has been provided by multiple users over a period of years. It's clear from this page http://comicbookdb.com/add.php that users are solicited to contribute information to the database. Meters (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Meters (talk) ":Why is this edit request here rather than on the article's talk page where it belongs? I removed the external link to http://comicbookdb.com/creator_history.php?ID=1635 It appears to me to be a user-generated site and hence not a reliable source. We don't use external links in the article body and that site does not appear to be appropriate for use as a source or in the external links section. "

It is listed here because I am having a conversation w/ @Beetstra. One that you've decided to join into. Or is that not allowed on my part? So many rules here on Wikipedia. I have been on this site under 6 days now and I am trying to take them all in. If you mean why is it not on the AfD page, it is because I cannot comment any further on that page.

And I believe comicbookdatabase IS listed as a verifiable source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References#Magazines.2FJournals See further down the page. So, either it IS a verifiable source, or it isn't. It says that it is. I am asking for additional help from an Admin or Editor on deciding this matter. If so, could you please undo your edit?ç —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to quote my entire post again. It's right there for everyone to read. Perhaps you should actually read it again. I asked rather than on the article's talk page where it belongs? Nothing about on the AFD page. I even linked to the article's talk page in my comment on your talk page.
This is not a personal conversation between you and another editor. You are discussing article content and conflict of interest edits, and the conversation belongs on the article's talk page where other editors can see it and participate if they choose. Read WP:COI. You have a very clear conflict of interest and I would suggest that you not make any more edits to the article. Propose your changes on the article's talk page and let other editors make the changes if they agree that the edits should be made.
I've already explained why Comic Book Database is not a reliable source. Even you don't think it's a reliable source. You said I can tell you that A LOT is wrong with that site in terms of credibility. Joe's page for instance has had an incorrect email address listed on it. And for 3-4 years now I have tried to reach them to change it. And this post [1] by User:Tenebrae in the Wikiproject Comics Reference talk page shows that I am not the only editor who has questioned the use of this database. That ediror calls it a wikia which is only acceptable as an EL. Meters (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I might suggest: The Grand Comics Database is a reliable, edited source already well-established in WikiProject Comics. And second, scanned articles can be uploaded to Scribd.com and linked to there. I believe the article Superman, for one, cites documents to Scribd, and so does Instant Replay (magazine-format video). --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ Tenebrae (talk) seems correct. I will look where it was suggested. I partially agree with you, but I just saw comicbookdtabase on the list of acceptable sources. Not sure where I should "ask" if I can edit or not. I cannot make a comment on the AfD discussion board for the page Joseph Michael Linsner. It appears to be closed. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk)

For the fourth time [2] [3] [4], make your proposals for changes to the article on the article's talk page. And here's the link for the second time: Talk:Joseph Michael Linsner. Meters (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Meters (talk) you are now it seems bordering on harassing me. By inserting yourself directly into my conversation with @Beetstra on this page. As I said, I am new to WIKIPEDIA (7 days new) so your "hints" as to where I should, or should not post are not being taken as they should be. They seem like typed demands and make you sound very standoffish. I also noted that you redacted my statements. I do not think they have to be entirely removed as I did not name the individual, and I will look into that. I think you are edging on being a personal bully to me. I do not want to talk to you anymore and I ask you to please refrain from commenting on this conversation. Now hurry up and go report me for claiming that you are edging on being a bully. (*eye roll*) User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Michael_Linsner"