User talk:Joedames

Welcome!

Hello, Joedames, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Kimberly Shaw for Boone County Associate Circuit Judge, Division 5, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kimberly Shaw for Boone County Associate Circuit Judge, Division 5

A tag has been placed on Kimberly Shaw for Boone County Associate Circuit Judge, Division 5, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Larry Bryson

A tag has been placed on Larry Bryson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to present the opponent in an attempt to "even things out," but 1) your effort is rather half-hearted, given where your leanings lie with Shaw, and 2) Bryson does not meet notability requirements, either. A low-level local judge is not notable by default, though some are notable for other reasons. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your a personal opinion 'A low-level local judge is not notable by default, though some are notable for other reasons'. Please reference the criteria that substantiates your opinion... it would be helpful. "Your effort is rather half-hearted, given where your leanings lie with Shaw," are both fallacious assumptions. Try googling both and let me know about the plethora of article links you find for Bryson. However, Kim Shaw is a very active organizer within the casa court appointed special advocates not for profit organization and is a vocal proponent and one of the original designers of the Missouri drug court, now a national standard for court initiated drug rehab that circumvents prison time. Please take a breather from your delete happy administration and try to google some of these folks. You could do the site some good by actually researching and giving your melting delete button a rest. With respect.--Joedames (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"With respect"? Really. Let's see, you've been posting article here how long now? Not even 12 hours? And suddenly you're an expert about the notability requirements? Wow! That was fast.

Now, where do we find out about what makes a politician notable by Wikipedia standards? Well, that's right here: WP:POLITICIAN. Click and read. And as best as I can tell, given the references you have provided — oops, sorry, you haven't provided any references at all that directly refer to either Shaw or Bryson — there's nothing by which we can independently verify that wither Shaw or Bryson is notable. You say that Google brings up lots of search results about these people. Well, why don't you provide some as references? That task falls to you as the original author, not me. It is up to you to show that these people meet Wikipedia's notability requirements by providing independent references from reliable sources. Otherwise, notability cannot be verified, and off they go. That's the way it works here. As a new-page patroller for more than four years, I'm pretty sure I have a better idea of how things work here than someone who just started posting articles tonight. (And I'll go to sleep when I'm good and ready.) So lay off the personal remarks and get to work on proving the notability of Shaw and Bryson. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read your link, WP:POLITICIAN? Obviously this meets that criteria, as they oversee a citizenry much larger than a metropolitan area. It is an area that covers over two counties which constitute one of the top population densities in the entire state. Quite clearly this meets the criteria. Add to the argument that the last Judge to hold this seat held it for over 33 years, this is massively more significant than any Mayor ( the bar of criteria from your own link).

March 2010

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Stick to the issues, not personal attacks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use your personal opinions that are utterly unfounded and have nothing to do with fact as supporting evidence in your crusade to delete important facts about widely reaching and impacting people and events my region as you needlessly seek to attack my article. Do not attack new editors creating factual based articles. It is not your place to make assumptions and spout off opinions that catalyze the deletion of these facts. Please stick to the facts and you will find I will not attack you. Hypothesize and color my efforts with your imagination, and you will be refuted without pause. Stick to the facts, please. Thank you! --Joedames (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have stuck to the facts. You have provided absolutely nothing by which we can verify the notability of either Shaw or Bryson. It appears you'd rather gripe and belly-ache instead. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided 2 references if you would take the time to read the article, assuming you read articles. [The University of Missouri School of Journalism's online Newspaper site] has an article that they have posted concerning Kim Shaw. Actually their are several articles concerning her there. I think the [Missouri School of Journalism] is a bit more notable than someone who has been volunteering on wikipedia at night after HS football games from his mom's basement. Let's see, oh, yes, it's the FIRST SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM IN THE WORLD!!! That's a bit older than 8 years now isn't it? I went to school there and I worked on the Columbia Missourian. You have not stuck to the facts at all. Did you even re-read your hypothesis about my leaning toward Kim Shaw? How is that based on fact, Sherlock? It's not. YOu suggested it was my job to sway people toward Kim Shaw, how is that based on fact, Sherlock? It is not. Go to bed! --Joedames (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I don't know how else to get you to behave and learn how to act in a civil manner. Your remarks will not be tolerated. Period. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if the Mizzou student newspaper did indeed publish articles about Shaw, you would do well to find the links to the specific articles and post them as references. (Generic links to a the home page of a website do not count.) This would be much more constructive than your personal attacks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the article for Pete's sake. The reference link has been there since the second or third edit. Please read the articles before you delete them. I expect an apology when you awake tomorrow and review your behavior here tonight. --Joedames (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references you provided are valid, but not enough by themselves to show notability. It has been established by longstanding practice at Wikipedia that a politician who has not yet been elected to office of any kind is not notable, unless he or she has established notability for something else (like a well-publicized criminal act or charge, as politicians are sometimes wont to do). Announcements in local newspapers one's candidacy are quite common — I have written quite a few in my more than a quarter century in the news business. And you still have given us nothing regarding Bryson, which strikes me as being odd for someone who has been in office as long as he appears to have been. It further buttresses my belief that you are much more concerned with with Shaw than Bryson.

There will be no apology forthcoming tonight, tomorrow or anytime soon, as there is no reason to apologize for properly enforcing Wikipedia policy. You have quite a bit to learn about how Wikipedia works.

I've just come in from a rather long day of putting together a sports section, so I'm still fully awake, and I think I shall stay awake as long as I see fit. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've come to the wrong place to wield your opinion. Try fact out for size, it's more than novel and you may like it. Please find some article for Bryson. I've put everything up there that I can find. I never claimed he was notable. I did claim that the entire Division and Circuit is notable. We have multiple judges presiding for 33+ years and a new candidate with over 20 murder trials and 500 jury trials is running. I am searching for more articles with regard to her establishment of CASA. You serve only folly should you delete this article. Buttress all the windmills you wish to tilt at, El ingenioso Senor Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, it does not change the true nature of the situation which is: There are no articles about Bryson. Just because Bryson!=notable, does not mean that Shaw!=notable, and certainbly does not mean that the Circuit court history replete with some of the longest seated Judges in the nation !=notable. You fail to see the merit because you are lusting for deletion. You wage war against a false monster, Don Quixote. It need not be tilted at. --Joedames (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaw and Bryson articles stand or fall separately. One may be notable and the other may not be. Being a part of a longstanding institution, which may itself be notable, does not automatically make someone notable. If there are no articles about Bryson (I actually found two, one in the CDT and another in the Fulton Sun, but both mention him only in passing), then it's pretty clear that he is not notable, but that has no direct bearing on Shaw's notability. You are so intent that your campaign article for Shaw remain that you have lost all sense of logic, not to mention any concern for Wikipedia's longstanding policies. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say I 'have lost all sense of logic' is an attack, particularly when it's not true. Please, don't do that.

I'm not intent that Shaw remain, I'm only intent there is info to inform who is chosen for this long seated judgeship. How do you turn that in to me campaigning for either one and why do you keep saying that? It's should not be your place to assume anything about me.

The articles you found about Bryson were likely about 40 opossums in a barrel criminal case and then the other article is about another case that involves a guy the courts extradited from Texas. These 'case' articles are not meritorious of further identifying the Judges, necessarily. I think they, alone, could could unfairly bias a voter negatively or positively which is not the point with a judge. The articles are about odd court cases, not judicial conduct or landmark rulings or cases. I will include them if you insist, but they seem less than useful.--Joedames (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, those aren't the articles. The ones I spoke of merely listed the current members of the court, in different contexts. (But the 40 opossums in a barrel thing sure got my attention - tell me more!) But back to the point: What one person calls "informing" is another way of promoting. In a broad context, Wikipedia prohibits promotion of anything at all, be it a cause (political, charitable or otherwise), a person, a group, a business — nothing. Any article which seeks to have the reader take any sort of action goes against this standard. As for notability: It has been held by longstanding precedent, if not by a formal guideline, that someone who is seeking political office is not notable until he or she is actually elected (barring notability for something else in their lives), and even after election may not be notable if the office is not at a high enough level. This precedent has been established after dozens, if not hundreds, of formal article for deletion discussions regarding similar articles and issues. It's a bit like case law that establishes precedents by a body of rulings in appeal courts. So Shaw's article is in trouble on two counts, promotion and notability, either of which may result in deletion. (For Bryson, it's notability only, as there is no promotion involved.) That's the issue in a nutshell. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from an administrator

I've deleted the Kimberly Shaw article as clear campaign advertising in violation of WP:SPAM. I have declined speedy deletion for Larry Bryson -- being a judge is at least an assertion of notability. But I don't think that being a state-court judge, without more, satisfies the notability requirements of WP:BIO, so I have listed that article for a 7-day deletion discussion at WP:AFD. You can comment there as to why you think Mr. Bryson's article should be kept. If you want to argue further about the Shaw article, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also asked to comment. There is a range of opinion about most things among admins and other people at WP. I am among those admins who have been arguing for more expanded coverage of local political figures, and even candidates nominated by major parties for national level elections. But even I would not support either of the articles. A person merely nominated for circuit court judge is not notable, unless they were to have a very exceptional and very well documented record of reliable sources--and in no imaginable case would we accept an article titled as you have titled it. As for a person who holds the position, opinions can differ.

We accept on the Federal level, judges of Federal district courts, but not federal magistrates. (For comparison purposes, there are 16 Federal district judges in Missouri.) On the state level, we accept members of the state's highest court, which for Missouri is the supreme Court of Missouri. I'm not sure we've ever had a test case for member of the second level,--very few members of state intermediate appellate courts have articles; the Missouri Court of Appeals, has 32 members-- none with articles, and I would not be inclined to try writing them as a matter of course. I am inclined to think personally we might do well to extend presumptive notability to this level but I do not think the comunity is very likely to accept it at present. There are 141 circuit court judge in Missouri. I have no formed opinion personally on whether we ought to extend presumptive notability down to this level, but I am certain the community will not accept it.

There is always the exception of when you can shown notability for the specific individual by non-routine significant published coverage. That's up to you to try. I don't think its very likely, but who knows? The AfD is the place to convince people, but you will only convince them by finding good references, not by argumentation about what ought to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Larry Bryson

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Larry Bryson. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Bryson. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]