This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
I notice that this page has been marked for potential deletion. If the more active editors on Wikipedia would like to see non-Wikipedian experts contribute to the project, they should be a bit less critical and dogmatic. I put a good hour into putting together this article -- if it's simply deleted (as the editor suggests it will be) there's no chance in hell I'll be contributing to Wikipedia again. If you want serious experts (I'm a Johns Hopkins Ph.D. who holds a faculty position at the Univ. of Sydney) to contribute, you can't ride roughshod over their contributions. I put up the barebones of an entry on an important scholar ... over time I'll add a few links, and hopefully others will too, and the entry will evolve into something of very high quality. That's the idea, right?
One thing Wikipedians don't seem to understand is that agressive editorial challenges lead, in some cases, to nutty articles dominated by the views of dogmatic extremists, since they're the only ones who care enough to keep pounding away to see their views reflected.
Salvatore
It might be wise to hold off on actually submitting articles until they're ready to stand up on their own without being pounced all over. Tons and tons of new articles come in every day. Many are very bare-bones and patchy and aren't really appropriate. Some of those bloom into magnificent, appropriate articles. Some of them just remain patchy, non-functional messes. I suspect you can guess which category the great majority falls into. Consequentially, some editors may tend to assume that an article that comes in weak is more likely than not going to stay weak. It may not always be correct, but it would take precognition to be able to know if it is or not. A strong start is important. If you're worried about losing your progress, you can copy this page's text down, or, if it's deleted first, mail an admin to get a copy so you can give it another shot. I think you raise some good points here. It's given me something to chew on. Anyway, I'm just trying to give you a note of personal advice based on my observations here, and to explain the perspective I think people are coming from. If there's some way I can help you out or answer questions, please ask away. - Vianello (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
