NatGertler (talk | contribs) →Donald Watkins: not going to be able to do all that it needs. |
NatGertler (talk | contribs) →You recently placed a prod: talk the relevant portions of your discussion to AFD. |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
Thanks for taking on the clean up. I think the article creator is stepping back from this, and it's probably best if I do too [[User:Jimfbleak|<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b>]] - [[User talk:Jimfbleak|<span style="font-family:arial;color:green"><i>talk to me?</i></span>]] 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks for taking on the clean up. I think the article creator is stepping back from this, and it's probably best if I do too [[User:Jimfbleak|<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b>]] - [[User talk:Jimfbleak|<span style="font-family:arial;color:green"><i>talk to me?</i></span>]] 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Jimfbleak}} I'm not going to have the time to do a full clean-up anytime soon, particularly because the key source being used is not online. I'm just pecking away at the edges. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler#top|talk]]) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Jimfbleak}} I'm not going to have the time to do a full clean-up anytime soon, particularly because the key source being used is not online. I'm just pecking away at the edges. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler#top|talk]]) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
==You recently placed a prod== |
|||
You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tnuza_Jamal_Hassan&diff=821793722&oldid=821771264 recently placed a prod] on [[Tnuza Jamal Hassan]] with the explanation: |
|||
''"Doesn't seem to qualify for an article '''''at this point''''', under [[WP:BLP1E]] and [[WP:BLPCRIME]] - an otherwise not notable individual not yet convicted of a crime."'' |
|||
Okay, but doesn't BLP1E list 3 criteria, all 3 of which should be met, before an individual is a genuine instance of a BLP1E that merits a merge or deletion? |
|||
The second of those criteria is: ''"If that person otherwise remains, and '''''is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.''''' Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."'' |
|||
There is a good reason why wikipedia contributors don't try to create a standalone article on every murderer. Tragically, ''most'' murders are very similar, with drug deals gone bad, or family fights that escalated in households where loaded firearms were available, being two of the most common patterns. We adequately cover these very similar murders, and very similar murderers, in our articles on murder, on domestic violence, on firearms. |
|||
Unlike murder, domestic terrorism, within the USA is very rare. If Hassan was merely a vandal, trying to trigger a fire alarm so her exam would be cancelled, her crimes probably wouldn't even make the campus newspaper. |
|||
But, even though no one was actually injured, she seems to have confessed to murderous intent. She wanted to set the campus ablaze. Her charge sheet says she told investigators the USA was lucky she didn't know how to build a bomb, or she would have set off bombs, on campus. |
|||
Hassan appears to have confessed to crimes that qualify calling her a failed terrorist, not a simple garden variety vandal. |
|||
So, with regard to point number 2, I think the chance that she '''''"is likely to remain, a low-profile individual"''''' is about zero. |
|||
You included the phrase ''"at this point"'' in your justification for deletion. Okay, at what point would you agree she merits a standalone article? |
|||
I work on topics related to terrorism and counter-terrorism. I have not come across any cases like hers. Do you know the phrase ''"textbook case"'' -- often used figuratively. But, in her case, it will be literally true, when a year or two from now, she is profiled in a textbook covering the topic of domestic terrorism. |
|||
Will that be the point you need to see, before you would agree she merits a standalone article? [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Even if she is convicted (which would get past the [[WP:BLPCRIME]] concerns on discussing her at all), what you've got is a teenager who was unnotable before the event and will likely only be notable in discussing the event (even if the event does land in textbooks), in which case we would expect to have an article about the event, mentioning relevant information about her within that context (and possibly using her name as a redirect to that article.) If her life proves to be of greater focus than the event, that might be an argument for an article on her. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler#top|talk]]) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::(edit conflict) |
|||
:* What we agree on is that Hassan was NN prior to getting caught. |
|||
:: You write she will ''"...likely only be notable in discussing the event..."'' Please think about this. What is the event? Her lighting a bunch of fires? Vandals commit petty acts of vandalism, all the time. If her "event" is merely setting fires, she is indistinguishable from all those petty vandals who don't end up in the news. If it were really just the "event" that merits coverage, why wouldn't it be adequately covered in an article on [[Arson on college campuses causing less than $10,000 damage]]? Why, because it is not the event that merits coverage. |
|||
:: '''What distinguishes Hassan''' is her apparent confession of murderous intent, her apparent confession to strike terror in the hearts of her neighbors in the American heartland. |
|||
:: What takes a kid, growing up in the American heartland, and triggers them to want to terrorize their neighbors? Is her confession, and the opinion of experts on terrorism, from the field of security, and the field of mental health, best covered in an article on the event of an attempt to start a bunch of fires on a University campus? Rhetorical question. Of course it isn't. |
|||
:: Journalist [[Robert Fisk]], who provided excellent coverage over a long career, had American right-wing commentators turn his name into a verb, ''"[[Robert_Fisk#Fisking]]"'', due to one instance where they claimed he was too credulous. Your comment may be suggesting that only if her name was similarly turned into a verb, ''"Hassaned"'', would you agree to having a standalone article. Is this ''really'' what you meant? [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Wow. Amazing. I said nothing about anyone's name turning into a verb, yet suddenly there is that straw man, erected for you to knock down. You act like it's something that unusual for an American to want to strike terror into the hearts of their neighbors... and yet, we don't have articles on every gay-basher, lyncher, and cross-burner in this country's history cluttering up these pages. But anyway, predictions of the future aside, what we've got there is an article that utterly disappears if we follow the suggestions of [[WP:BLPCRIME]]. Whether there should be an article in the future can be decided based on future developments. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler#top|talk]]) 23:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:* I am going to ask you to reflect on the wisdom of [[WP:VER]]. You and I are just wikipedia contributors. What we cover here is supposed to be based on the judgement of reliable authoritative sources, as reflected in their published work. If you and I were newspaper editors, and one of our writers wanted to write about young Ms Hassan, we would have the authority to yank our writer's article, or make them do a rewrite, based on arguments like that you used above, that (paraphrasing) ''she was really only a crazy mixed up kid, and her apparent resemblance to a terrorist could safely be ignored.'' |
|||
:: I know I am not a journalist, or a newspaper editor. I know I should not let my own personal opinion of Ms Hassan's case influence my work on her coverage. |
|||
:: But, excuse me, when you write about how Hassan is (paraphrasing) ''just a mixed up kid, whose act of vandalism didn't cause serious damage, so doesn't merit significant coverage here'' -- aren't you putting your personal judgement in front of the professional judgement of the professional editors who already decided these issues DO merit coverage? [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay, you don't even give me enough time to complete my response to your previous inventing of a stance for me that you're here doing it again. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here through your badgering, but I'm asking you to stop, and suggesting that you go read [[WP:NOTNEWS]] if you have not read it before. If you can show me a respectable encyclopedia that has an article on her, that would be different, but the goal of a newspaper and the goal of an encyclopedia are different. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler#top|talk]]) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::* For all you and I know, if you kept your cool, and confined yourself to discussion, you may have convinced me... or I may have convinced you. |
|||
:::: We are all responsible for what we do and write here. I do not think attempts at civil discussion should be described a "badgering". |
|||
:::: I am sorry, but I think removing the prod you yourself placed, and escalating your concern to AFD, is not compliant with the spirit of [[WP:PROD]]. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 00:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I too am sorry that you are unaware of the "spirit of [[WP:PROD]]." PROD is for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that you posted here to argue against the prod is the proof that prod is not the right system for handling this deletion. I really have no interest in having an extended talk page discussion with you where you make up a stance for me just so I can say "hey, I didn't say that", and would rather just cut to the chase of discussing it where other people will see it and weigh in. You may feel free to take your further comments about the possible deletion of the article there. If you feel the need to go on some further discussion of how I was not "cool" enough to subject myself to your treatment, of course you shouldn't post that there... but then, you probably shouldn't post that anywhere. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler#top|talk]]) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:34, 23 January 2018
FOR EARLIER POSTS see Archive 1, Archive 2
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello NatGertler! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Holiday Cheer
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
Editing glitch
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Happy Holidays!
I hope you have a great holiday!
01:38, December 1, 2015 (UTC)
Peter Buschang Deletion
Dude you gotta give me 10 minutes to finish writing the article. I just hit submit and was going to add everything. You can't just go on a deleting spree without giving someone a chance. All the sourcing and links are done
About Home's sequel
This may be a true sequel
The World Tomorrow (radio and television)
Hi,
Glad to meet you.
I noticed your reversion of my edit on this page. I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team and one of my current projects is to eliminate duplications of the word 'the'. Some are simple duplications, others are because they are on both sides of a wikilink and one goes unnoticed when reading. Once in a while, they're legitimate, but I don't believe this is one of those instances.
It's a myth that when the definite article 'the' precedes a noun or name that starts with 'the', it should be repeated. Only one 'the' is proper use. For instance, it's not proper to say (or write) that I'm going to play the The Legend of Zelda video game.
Spoken English generally allows much more leeway than written English, but even to say that there were varied translations of the The World Tomorrow name is extremely awkward - even grating. (Try saying it out loud.) If you think it's proper to use 'the' twice, may I suggest recasting the sentence so that they're not consecutive?
I'm aware that you're a writer and appreciate your experience, but I believe that if this was submitted to an editor, it would be changed. Please let me know if you want me to recast the sentence, or you want to.
Regards,
Ira
Ira Leviton (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ira,
- I appreciate all the time and effort you're putting into cleaning up Wikipedia. If you feel that that's awkward, feel free to rephrase, just not in the way that you did.
- When you tell me that it's a myth that the two sequential thes are correct, I respond with an admittedly problematic "sez who?" This is a topic that most style guides do not address. And no, I don't find it extremely awkward when spoken, but then I would instinctively pronounce the two differently ("thee thuh world tomorrow"). I don't find the removal at all logical; the two uses of the word serve different purposes and neither is removable. If I say "I purchased an An Affair to Remember poster and put it up next to the The Babe poster that was already there," I have done nothing wrong; to drop one of the thes changes it from my putting up a poster for a film about Babe Ruth to putting up a poster for a film about a talking pig. (Admittedly, some of the stories about Mr. Ruth suggest that there wasn't that much difference.)
- Have a fine weekend! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI
ANI on Linda Perry and Sara Gilbert Jim1138 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Beyond Ex-Gay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beyond Ex-Gay 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/Beyond Ex-Gay 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. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Nat, we had an edit conflict; by the time your prod was up there, I had already created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Ex-Gay, and so rather than cancel that (is that even possible?) or just let it hang twisting slowly in the wind, I just went ahead and replaced the prod notice with the Afd notice. Hope that's okay. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- This probably would've been a good thing to do with Prod - less fuss, and there's no sign that anyone is actually interested in keeping the article there. But the AfD is fine. (You may want to try using Twinkle, which can set up AFDs quickly and automatically for you.) ---Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, why was you added deletion tag on Jahnavi Kapoor. The page have many reliable sources of Indian Newspapers websites like India.com, India Today, Indian Express. If you think that add more sources, I can add in It. Please consider to remove the deletion tag. Thanks HINDWIKI • CHAT 11:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I prodded it because our guidelines say that actors should have multiple notable rolls to get their own article, and this subject's debut film has not yet come out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Aurora Lighting
Hi, what I need to remove the notability note? I created pages before and I didn't receive this message. Also, last night another user removed many links. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can.kilic1981 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
COI Noticeboard Process
Regarding [[1]], I'm not sure what additional I can provide beyond, what I believe, is a clear WP:COI in regards to Mr.hmm with PfSense and OPNSense since the account was created 7 months after the initial release of OPNSense. Every edit and comment has been for one and opposed to the other, while constantly attacking other editors. If you have the responsibility of passing judgement, did you read his contributions and if there is something that I failed to do to demonstrate his actions, I would like to know how to improve it. I thought that I was posting in the correct place to have him considered for COI, yet you dismissed my claim simply based on his comments of the content being notable, yet again. I have added 12 citations to the Draft:OPNSense page to satisfy the notability, can we please address the issue at hand, that Mr.hmm has a Conflict of Interest and is not-neutral in his actions. His actions seem to fall into various behavioral categories, including WP:Disruptive Editing, WP:Gaming_the_system, WP:POINT, and likely others. I'm simply asking how I can get a more thorough review of this user's behavior, or if such a mechanism exists. ComputerRick (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I did not dismiss your claim, I addressed a single aspect of it which was based in problematic logic. I do not have some special COI-board powers. As to how to improve it, you muddied the waters of your concern over the one editor by listing other editors on your complaint; it made it look like you were declaring this a COI cabal, which falls apart on quicker examination. In any case, you should be bringing your consideration and arguments to the conflict of interest noticeboard where you started the discussion, and not to the personal talk page of just another editor, where it will achieve little if anything. The editor you are accusing does seem to be at least a single-purpose account which can indeed be an indication (but not proof) of a conflict of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- With the upmost respect to you, I don't think it's appropriate to view my account as a single-purpose account just because one of many sock accounts try to get me removed. The user ComputerRick appears and attacks me (not to mention calls me a fascist several times) right after OPNsense draft is rejected by other editors. All of these socks appear almost one after another, it's beyond obvious that they're SPA's. And all of them keep pushing the same propaganda draft for non-notable software. I literally battle their sock accounts all the time, just check my talk page and talk page history.--Mr.hmm (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, but I don't view your account as a likely SPA because someone is trying to get you removed. I've seen many people targeted for removal (myself included) and many were not SPAs (myself included.) I view your account as a likely SPA because of the narrow band of articles you've edited some consistent purpose showing in what of those edits I've checked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Because I stop vandalism and self-promotion? That's a pretty weak argument for SPA. I would with agree you if I was actually inserting content and not removing blatant promotion against the rules, instead my edits are related to FreeBSD and preventing vandalism (as described on my user page). Are you saying I should consider areas other than FreeBSD?--Mr.hmm (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, because I'm not saying that you shouldn't be an SPA. Simply being an SPA is not inherently a problem. Some SPAs do a lot of good, and some are celebrated for their efforts. (Others, not so much.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree about SPA matter but I respect your opinion as you're much more experienced editor. It's nice to have a pleasant chat for a change. Cheers!--Mr.hmm (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- NatGertler, You are correct. This is my first foray into contesting or complaining of any type of behavior and I was wrong to include the other two. The reason I've come at this so focused is because of the consistent attacks that Mr.hmm makes against anyone trying to include something he doesn't agree with. He's attacked nearly 20 users as socks because he's thinks we have an agenda. I make a mistake and post 2 editors and I get lambasted, while Mr.hmm is not addressed at all? He attacks and I make a mistake of etiquette, the responses for him & I do not seem to fit the crimes. Thank you for being reasonable and honest. ComputerRick (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is that number of “nearly 20” actual or is it another wrong judgment made by you? I would love to see those "20" users listed somewhere. Especially when other Wikipedia editors have warned and even reported them. You’re the one who came in fiercely making accusations, not me (including calling me a fascist). Perhaps you should stop using NatGertler'talk page for personal attacks.--Mr.hmm (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, because I'm not saying that you shouldn't be an SPA. Simply being an SPA is not inherently a problem. Some SPAs do a lot of good, and some are celebrated for their efforts. (Others, not so much.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Because I stop vandalism and self-promotion? That's a pretty weak argument for SPA. I would with agree you if I was actually inserting content and not removing blatant promotion against the rules, instead my edits are related to FreeBSD and preventing vandalism (as described on my user page). Are you saying I should consider areas other than FreeBSD?--Mr.hmm (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, but I don't view your account as a likely SPA because someone is trying to get you removed. I've seen many people targeted for removal (myself included) and many were not SPAs (myself included.) I view your account as a likely SPA because of the narrow band of articles you've edited some consistent purpose showing in what of those edits I've checked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- With the upmost respect to you, I don't think it's appropriate to view my account as a single-purpose account just because one of many sock accounts try to get me removed. The user ComputerRick appears and attacks me (not to mention calls me a fascist several times) right after OPNsense draft is rejected by other editors. All of these socks appear almost one after another, it's beyond obvious that they're SPA's. And all of them keep pushing the same propaganda draft for non-notable software. I literally battle their sock accounts all the time, just check my talk page and talk page history.--Mr.hmm (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, NatGertler. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The Happiness Hack
Mr. Gertler:
I am writing in regards to the proposed deletion (and eventual deletion of) The Happiness Hack Wikipedia page, The Happiness Hack is a book by Ellen Petry Leanse. I had initially seen the proposed deletion and meant to remove the tag and address the concern with the page but got sidetracked by the holiday. Though I've had a Wikipedia account for some time I am fairly new to consistent active editing on Wikipedia. I'd like the opportunity to fix the concern and restore The Happiness Hack page. The concern you stated was: Unsourced article with no claim of notabilityItalic text. I have the material to include that would be satisfactory in resolving the concern. How should I best proceed? With you being a seasoned and notable Wikipedia editor, your assistance and guidance would be most welcomed and priceless. Most appreciated in advance!
--DAyatollah (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk)
- For instructions on getting a page deleted by proposed deletion undeleted, see WP:REFUND. Having said that, be aware that there is likely to be concerned raised about any page about a book posted within a month of that book's release, as such articles tend to be promotional in intent or nature, as a month is generally not enough time for a book's true place in the world to have been established.
- As a side note, when adding a new section to a talk page, it's best to add it to the bottom of the page rather than at the top. Talk pages are generally expected to be in historic order. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Nat:
Most appreciate the swift reply as well as the insight and side note on the WP: REFUND process and talk page purpose and best practices! The Happiness Hack was a book I had recently read and after deeper research on its subject matter and the author felt both should be included on Wikipedia. Additionally, I want to become more active on Wikipedia and felt these inclusions were ideal to start with. Will proceed accordingly and follow you closely to learn as I strive to become a better Wikipedia contributor and editor. A pleasure to meet and connect!
--DAyatollah (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you found a book that is of value to you. If you have any other questions about Wikipedia practices, let me know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Most appreciated! And yes sir, I absolutely will! Bless you, for your time. Hope you had a happy holiday and have a great new year! --DAyatollah (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Ellen Petry Leanse
Got your message. I'm pulling info as I locate all I can find on the author and then including the sources. I saw the Wikipedia notification on a promotional concern. Didn't do purposely, and trying to figure out how to correct. Not sure which language on how I wrote it triggered it. Any guidance?
--DAyatollah (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm the person who raised the promotional language flag on the article. Let's look at the first paragraph as you just wrote it:
Ellen Petry Leanse (born Ellen Petry August 12, 1958) is an American author, business leader, coach, educator, entrepreneur, and tech pioneer. Leanse has spent 35 years working with leaders at Apple, Google, Facebook, as an entrepreneur, and with dozens of startups. She’s a widely-followed writer on topics of workplace dynamics and a Stanford instructor. Her work has spanned entrepreneurship, corporate leadership, investing, and strategy consulting. Combining decades of life lessons with insights from neuroscience, design, and mindfulness practice, Ellen guides companies and individuals to “think different” about life satisfaction, relationships, impact, and the paths that build them.
- "Leader", "pioneer", "widely-followed", and the claims about her methodology are all promotional in tone. This looks like an ad, not a neutral encyclopedia article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I see, it's the inferencing tone, I'll revise accordingly. Is there a way this type of language could be substantiated with sources? Or is it simply a point of view and speculative?
DAyatollah (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I revised the followoing, removing the words "leader", "widely-follwed", and changing "tech pioneer" to "online community pioneer", whhich I think the source info cleary presents, let me know if you still think I should just revise that further:
- Ellen Petry Leanse (born Ellen Petry August 12, 1958) is an American author, business person, coach, educator, entrepreneur, and online community pioneer. Leanse has spent 35 years working with leaders at Apple, Google, Facebook, as an entrepreneur, and with dozens of startups. She’s a writer on topics of workplace dynamics and a Stanford instructor. Her work has spanned entrepreneurship, corporate leadership, investing, and strategy consulting. Combining decades of life lessons with insights from neuroscience, design, and mindfulness practice, Ellen guides companies and individuals to “think different” about life satisfaction, relationships, impact, and the paths that build them.
--DAyatollah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Donald Watkins
Thanks for taking on the clean up. I think the article creator is stepping back from this, and it's probably best if I do too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: I'm not going to have the time to do a full clean-up anytime soon, particularly because the key source being used is not online. I'm just pecking away at the edges. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You recently placed a prod
You recently placed a prod on Tnuza Jamal Hassan with the explanation: "Doesn't seem to qualify for an article at this point, under WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME - an otherwise not notable individual not yet convicted of a crime."
Okay, but doesn't BLP1E list 3 criteria, all 3 of which should be met, before an individual is a genuine instance of a BLP1E that merits a merge or deletion?
The second of those criteria is: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."
There is a good reason why wikipedia contributors don't try to create a standalone article on every murderer. Tragically, most murders are very similar, with drug deals gone bad, or family fights that escalated in households where loaded firearms were available, being two of the most common patterns. We adequately cover these very similar murders, and very similar murderers, in our articles on murder, on domestic violence, on firearms.
Unlike murder, domestic terrorism, within the USA is very rare. If Hassan was merely a vandal, trying to trigger a fire alarm so her exam would be cancelled, her crimes probably wouldn't even make the campus newspaper.
But, even though no one was actually injured, she seems to have confessed to murderous intent. She wanted to set the campus ablaze. Her charge sheet says she told investigators the USA was lucky she didn't know how to build a bomb, or she would have set off bombs, on campus.
Hassan appears to have confessed to crimes that qualify calling her a failed terrorist, not a simple garden variety vandal.
So, with regard to point number 2, I think the chance that she "is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is about zero.
You included the phrase "at this point" in your justification for deletion. Okay, at what point would you agree she merits a standalone article?
I work on topics related to terrorism and counter-terrorism. I have not come across any cases like hers. Do you know the phrase "textbook case" -- often used figuratively. But, in her case, it will be literally true, when a year or two from now, she is profiled in a textbook covering the topic of domestic terrorism.
Will that be the point you need to see, before you would agree she merits a standalone article? Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Even if she is convicted (which would get past the WP:BLPCRIME concerns on discussing her at all), what you've got is a teenager who was unnotable before the event and will likely only be notable in discussing the event (even if the event does land in textbooks), in which case we would expect to have an article about the event, mentioning relevant information about her within that context (and possibly using her name as a redirect to that article.) If her life proves to be of greater focus than the event, that might be an argument for an article on her. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- What we agree on is that Hassan was NN prior to getting caught.
- You write she will "...likely only be notable in discussing the event..." Please think about this. What is the event? Her lighting a bunch of fires? Vandals commit petty acts of vandalism, all the time. If her "event" is merely setting fires, she is indistinguishable from all those petty vandals who don't end up in the news. If it were really just the "event" that merits coverage, why wouldn't it be adequately covered in an article on Arson on college campuses causing less than $10,000 damage? Why, because it is not the event that merits coverage.
- What distinguishes Hassan is her apparent confession of murderous intent, her apparent confession to strike terror in the hearts of her neighbors in the American heartland.
- What takes a kid, growing up in the American heartland, and triggers them to want to terrorize their neighbors? Is her confession, and the opinion of experts on terrorism, from the field of security, and the field of mental health, best covered in an article on the event of an attempt to start a bunch of fires on a University campus? Rhetorical question. Of course it isn't.
- Journalist Robert Fisk, who provided excellent coverage over a long career, had American right-wing commentators turn his name into a verb, "Robert_Fisk#Fisking", due to one instance where they claimed he was too credulous. Your comment may be suggesting that only if her name was similarly turned into a verb, "Hassaned", would you agree to having a standalone article. Is this really what you meant? Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. Amazing. I said nothing about anyone's name turning into a verb, yet suddenly there is that straw man, erected for you to knock down. You act like it's something that unusual for an American to want to strike terror into the hearts of their neighbors... and yet, we don't have articles on every gay-basher, lyncher, and cross-burner in this country's history cluttering up these pages. But anyway, predictions of the future aside, what we've got there is an article that utterly disappears if we follow the suggestions of WP:BLPCRIME. Whether there should be an article in the future can be decided based on future developments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you to reflect on the wisdom of WP:VER. You and I are just wikipedia contributors. What we cover here is supposed to be based on the judgement of reliable authoritative sources, as reflected in their published work. If you and I were newspaper editors, and one of our writers wanted to write about young Ms Hassan, we would have the authority to yank our writer's article, or make them do a rewrite, based on arguments like that you used above, that (paraphrasing) she was really only a crazy mixed up kid, and her apparent resemblance to a terrorist could safely be ignored.
- I know I am not a journalist, or a newspaper editor. I know I should not let my own personal opinion of Ms Hassan's case influence my work on her coverage.
- But, excuse me, when you write about how Hassan is (paraphrasing) just a mixed up kid, whose act of vandalism didn't cause serious damage, so doesn't merit significant coverage here -- aren't you putting your personal judgement in front of the professional judgement of the professional editors who already decided these issues DO merit coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, you don't even give me enough time to complete my response to your previous inventing of a stance for me that you're here doing it again. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here through your badgering, but I'm asking you to stop, and suggesting that you go read WP:NOTNEWS if you have not read it before. If you can show me a respectable encyclopedia that has an article on her, that would be different, but the goal of a newspaper and the goal of an encyclopedia are different. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- For all you and I know, if you kept your cool, and confined yourself to discussion, you may have convinced me... or I may have convinced you.
- We are all responsible for what we do and write here. I do not think attempts at civil discussion should be described a "badgering".
- I too am sorry that you are unaware of the "spirit of WP:PROD." PROD is for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that you posted here to argue against the prod is the proof that prod is not the right system for handling this deletion. I really have no interest in having an extended talk page discussion with you where you make up a stance for me just so I can say "hey, I didn't say that", and would rather just cut to the chase of discussing it where other people will see it and weigh in. You may feel free to take your further comments about the possible deletion of the article there. If you feel the need to go on some further discussion of how I was not "cool" enough to subject myself to your treatment, of course you shouldn't post that there... but then, you probably shouldn't post that anywhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)