Professor JR (talk | contribs) re-sort order of postings; delete one section |
→Civility notice: new section |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
:The content, links and photo image you have removed were better sourced than, say, much of content in the [[Grafton, Wisconsin]] or the [[Grafton High School (Wisconsin)]] articles, for example. I generally try to utilize what time I have for this (don't have nearly as much [[free time]] on my hands, apparently, as some do) on ''constructive'' contributions, rather than focusing on really rather petty, disassembling, ''deconstructing'' efforts directed at the good faith work and contributions of other editors. |
:The content, links and photo image you have removed were better sourced than, say, much of content in the [[Grafton, Wisconsin]] or the [[Grafton High School (Wisconsin)]] articles, for example. I generally try to utilize what time I have for this (don't have nearly as much [[free time]] on my hands, apparently, as some do) on ''constructive'' contributions, rather than focusing on really rather petty, disassembling, ''deconstructing'' efforts directed at the good faith work and contributions of other editors. |
||
:'''('''By the way: If you happened to live in the fire-prone, heavily forested area around Story, Wyo. -- which has experienced years now of [[drought conditions]] and a lesser-than-normal [[snowpack]] -- you might not still be prone to opine that "Just having a fire department is not notable." (A couple of my friends in Story got quite a chuckle out of that assertion.) Also, just curious, how can it be that one claims to be both a "native of Wisconsin", and a "native of South Dakota"? ('''cf.''' [[User:Runner1928|Runner1928 User Page]] Userboxes).''')''' [[User:Professor JR|Professor JR]] ([[User talk:Professor JR#top|talk]]) 08:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
:'''('''By the way: If you happened to live in the fire-prone, heavily forested area around Story, Wyo. -- which has experienced years now of [[drought conditions]] and a lesser-than-normal [[snowpack]] -- you might not still be prone to opine that "Just having a fire department is not notable." (A couple of my friends in Story got quite a chuckle out of that assertion.) Also, just curious, how can it be that one claims to be both a "native of Wisconsin", and a "native of South Dakota"? ('''cf.''' [[User:Runner1928|Runner1928 User Page]] Userboxes).''')''' [[User:Professor JR|Professor JR]] ([[User talk:Professor JR#top|talk]]) 08:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Civility notice == |
|||
I do not appreciate your comments [[Special:Diff/668913759|here]] or [[Special:Diff/668951104|here]] mocking me for my age, current educational status, or general editing focus on Wiki. Making disputes personal instead of discussing how to improve articles is a violation of Wikipedia's [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] policy, which I would expect you to know since you've been editing here for nearly a decade. It also strikes me as petty revenge for the fact that I reverted your move of [[Hillary Clinton email system]] while an RM was ongoing, which I can assure you was not a personal attack on you (I would have reverted anyone who moved the page during the discussion). I would appreciate it if you keep your comments on-topic, relevant to the discussion at hand, and focused on article improvement. Thank you. –'''''[[User:Chasewc91|Chase]]''''' ([[User talk:Chasewc91|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Chasewc91|contribs]]) 21:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:45, 27 June 2015
Welcome!
Hello, Professor JR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - Cwobeel (talk)
- Also note that there is no need to repeat "see also" wikilinks. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Professor JR, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Professor JR! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) |
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Draft:Denis P. Galvin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://parksforscience.berkeley.edu/galvin.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @CorenSearchBot: Thanks. Greatly appreciate your review & input for the proposed draft Article. I have since totally re-written it, and cited numerous additional sources. I also responded to your concerns on the draft's Talk Page: Draft:Denis P. Galvin Talk Page. As explained there, I believe it now avoids even any appearance of violations, and am confident that it does not in fact contain any copyrighted material(s), nor any copyright violations as currently drafted.Professor JR (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @CorenSearchBot: Tag removed after further addressing concerns it expressed. Again, thanks very much to CorenSearchBot for your consideration & assistance with this draft article.Professor JR (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Clinton controversies (June 9)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Clinton controversies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Split
You ought to split your "Clinton controversies" draft into separate drafts for Bill and Hillary to avoid guilt by association. Also, the word "controversies" is no good in a title, per WP:Criticism, so you should change to something like "Hillary Clinton incidents" and "Bill Clinton incidents", or something similar (though I cannot guarantee that that would solve the problem unless you include some incidents that were not controversial).Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant:A good, and very welcomed suggestion on the title. Thanks. Relative to splitting the article into two, however, I'm not sure that's even possible, as the Clintons are spouses (with common property rights, joint tax returns, etc., etc. - e.g. any money Bill makes also belongs to Hillary, etc.) -- and they have also been inseparably linked, by their own choosing, in their shared public lives since the Arkansas days, during the White House years (where Hillary even insisted on an office in the West Wing, as she discusses in her autobiography), and by their family foundation -- which they chose to call the "Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation". There is also a long tradition in journalism, in terms of ethics and sound journalism practices, that the spouse of a candidate for the presidency is, as they say: "fair game" -- for they are slated to become First Lady (or in the case at hand, First Gentleman) if the candidacy is successful -- a role now well established by historical and legal precedent as that of a government public official in its own right, which comes with (although no salary, per se) an array of public responsibilities, and corresponding emoluments, staff, office space, transportation, Secret Service protection, etc. Beyond that, almost all, or at least the majority of the "incidents" or "controversies" at issue here included one degree or another of involvement by both Clintons, with the possible exception of the Bengazi matter (although its not a real stretch to imagine they may have discussed it at the time, or shared insights through their shared, private e-Mail server, established officially by former Pres. Cilnton for his post-presidential home office use, and utilized by Secr. Clinton, in lieu of a gov't. server, while Secretary of State.) I do feel rather strongly that a split of the draft article into two separate articles would be very difficult, and if done, the result would result in considerable, extensive duplication and redundancy and de facto cross-referencing between the two. Can't really see how it could be reasonably even accomplished. What do you think?Professor JR (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you split it into three (Bill, Hillary, Both) then you overcome that problem. You could submit only one as an article, and then based on the outcome submit the others or not. I don't know what my position would be, but you will have a better chance if you follow this advice, I suspect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant:OK, suggestion appreciated & well taken -- but I'm a bit hard pressed to figure out precisely what would not be included in the "Both" article. Perhaps the "Gennifer Flowers", "Troopergate", & "Paula Jones" sections arguably don't belong in article on Secr. Clinton; and maybe the section on Huma Abedin shouldn't be included in the former President's (although he did officiate and perform the marriage ceremony when Adedin married Anthony Weiner, and remains friendly and in contact with both.) Fact is, throughout their long careers of public service, both Clintons have jointly participated in almost everything, as is true of most married people, and perhaps even more so in their case as relates to their public lives. Do you have suggestions for which of the draft sections belong in each of the suggested three (Bill, Hillary, Both) articles?Professor JR (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- It would be easy enough for you to say in the Introduction something like "Inclusion here does not mean the spouse was not involved in any way, only that the spouse was not the primary person involved."Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant:OK, suggestion appreciated & well taken -- but I'm a bit hard pressed to figure out precisely what would not be included in the "Both" article. Perhaps the "Gennifer Flowers", "Troopergate", & "Paula Jones" sections arguably don't belong in article on Secr. Clinton; and maybe the section on Huma Abedin shouldn't be included in the former President's (although he did officiate and perform the marriage ceremony when Adedin married Anthony Weiner, and remains friendly and in contact with both.) Fact is, throughout their long careers of public service, both Clintons have jointly participated in almost everything, as is true of most married people, and perhaps even more so in their case as relates to their public lives. Do you have suggestions for which of the draft sections belong in each of the suggested three (Bill, Hillary, Both) articles?Professor JR (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you split it into three (Bill, Hillary, Both) then you overcome that problem. You could submit only one as an article, and then based on the outcome submit the others or not. I don't know what my position would be, but you will have a better chance if you follow this advice, I suspect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Notability
I'm another contributor to Story, Wyoming, and I appreciate your work on that page. I wanted to let you know that I removed many of the links you added to the town's services. That's because we have no evidence for their notability. If you can find a reliable secondary source, like the Sheridan newspaper, that describes Story's fire department (for example), then we can add it. See WP:NOTRS for more information. Runner1928 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Runner1928: Thanks so much for your 2015-06-27 edits pretty much eviscerating some 13,800 bytes of recent contributions to the Story, Wyoming article. Glad to know you appreciate the work of others contributing to that page, as you have so very clearly demonstrated by your edits.
- The content, links and photo image you have removed were better sourced than, say, much of content in the Grafton, Wisconsin or the Grafton High School (Wisconsin) articles, for example. I generally try to utilize what time I have for this (don't have nearly as much free time on my hands, apparently, as some do) on constructive contributions, rather than focusing on really rather petty, disassembling, deconstructing efforts directed at the good faith work and contributions of other editors.
- (By the way: If you happened to live in the fire-prone, heavily forested area around Story, Wyo. -- which has experienced years now of drought conditions and a lesser-than-normal snowpack -- you might not still be prone to opine that "Just having a fire department is not notable." (A couple of my friends in Story got quite a chuckle out of that assertion.) Also, just curious, how can it be that one claims to be both a "native of Wisconsin", and a "native of South Dakota"? (cf. Runner1928 User Page Userboxes).) Professor JR (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Civility notice
I do not appreciate your comments here or here mocking me for my age, current educational status, or general editing focus on Wiki. Making disputes personal instead of discussing how to improve articles is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, which I would expect you to know since you've been editing here for nearly a decade. It also strikes me as petty revenge for the fact that I reverted your move of Hillary Clinton email system while an RM was ongoing, which I can assure you was not a personal attack on you (I would have reverted anyone who moved the page during the discussion). I would appreciate it if you keep your comments on-topic, relevant to the discussion at hand, and focused on article improvement. Thank you. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)