User talk:Nomoreworldwar

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some links to pages that will help you to find your way around, understand some of the most relevant policies and guidelines, and develop your editing skills:

The basics

Questions and answers

The community

Creating articles

Policies and guidelines

About images

Please sign your name whenever you leave a comment by using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the date. Whenever you edit a page, even if the edit is minor, you should include a descriptive edit summary. If you need help, visit the Help Desk or the New Contributors' Help page. If you would like direct access to help from an experienced editor, you can join the adopt-a-user project. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and find it a rewarding experience. - Adrian M. H. 17:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption request

Hello Nomoreworldwar, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your message on my talkpage and my apologies in the delay in getting back to you, I have been bogged down in a complex administrative issue.

So, since two of my adoptees are pretty much flying solo now, and the other two are very infrequent editors, I guess I can squeeze in another, if you are still interested.

I firmly believe the adoption process is a great way to get more involved and learn about the project, so I'd be pleased to help out however I can. Just so you know, the adoption procedure is entirely flexible and you (or I) may terminate the relationship at anytime, simply by letting the other know. You are also entirely welcome to seek other mentors at any time, either in addition to or instead of me. I try to keep and eye on my adoptees contributions and will offer advice unsolicited where I can. I'm also very open to questions about pretty much anything - simple or complex - and will try and reply as soon as I can. I'm also happy to help out on any editing projects or article you are interested in, to help it get off the ground, or to mediate if you get into any scrapes.

When I'm convinced you are up to speed on WP (not that you can't carry on learning, as I still find new things all the time!) I will let you know and offer to "graduate" you. However, does not mean we have to terminate our relationship, as you will be welcome to remain an adoptee for as long as you wish, until you feel ready to graduate. Even then, I will always be available to offer advice as a colleague. If you are happy with this arrangement, then let me know and I can "do the paperwork". If - after reading this - you decide not to, thats cool also. Rockpocket 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'm so sorry for the delay in getting back to you (again). I promise this is only a temporary glitch in my usually prompt service! I've just been very busy at work recently, so Wikipedia has taken a bit of a back seat. Anyway, I'm pleased you would like to go ahead with the adoption. I've placed the appropriate templates in the right place, so now we're legal, so to speak.

So, I guess the question is... what would you like to get out of Wikipedia? There are loads of different things you can do to help the project, from vandal fighting, to WikiGnomeing, article writing, WikiProjecting, copyediting, categorizing, Ref Desking and wikifying... the list goes on. If there is something you would like to learn, or would like help with, just ask and I can give you some pointers. Rockpocket 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages

Hi. Some people prefer to have a conversation in one place, i.e. the will answer questions made on their talkpage on their talkpage, directly beneath. The advantage of this is that it is easy to follow the conversation. Others prefer to answer questions on their talkpage, on the other person's talkpage (like I have been doing here). This splits up the conversation, but has the advantage of alerting the questioner that that have a "new message". I will keep your talkpage on my watchlist, so you can ask questions here or on my page and I will see them. However, in general, I will probably find question on my talkpage quicker.

I guess the article you posted was Eric Schwarzkopf, right? I have a few comments about that, actually. The principle criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability. The problem with the Schwarzkopf article is that I'm not sure where the claim of notability is. The only "unusual" thing about him may be that he was "in charge" of Essen for a while, but I'm not sure that is sufficient for notability purposes. Without a claim for notability, that article could be speedy deleted at any time. The second issue is verifiability. For biographies of living people pretty much all information needs to be referenced to a reliable source. I can't find any mention of Schwarzkopf on the web (though, of course, that doesn't mean a whole lot, as they may be many books that mention him). Anyway, these are some issues that need to be addressed, however, don't be disheartened as my first articles has many of the same problems, thats just how it works. If its possible, we'll get it up to scratch, otherwise you can put this one down to experience and move on to a more notable subject! Rockpocket 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rockpocket!

Thank you so much for consistently answering me when I do contact you. And I so appreciate your feedback. Everything you write makes sense. And I am sorry that I haven't contacted you sooner, I just like to ruminate on feedback before I answer.

Wikipedia is major not just because it is the encyclopedia of the internet, but because it, like so many other things in our society today, is breaking rigid rules. It is taking 'defining our world' out of the hands of a few and into the hands of the many: The populace is becoming expert.

Wikipedia takes many chances. Why, even use of the word 'verifiability' is a stretch. Wikipedia uses the word in a way typical and long standing texts would probably not. The term itself refers to philosophical principles and ensuing arguments, not necessarily whether subject matter is accurate.

I don't mean to be a smart-a_ _, just really want to make a point: Wikipedia steps out of the norm, for that, it's endured some flak...but all good and new ideas do.

The article Eric Schwarzkopf has notability because this man was enslaved by the nazis and one of the few to escape. Most immigrants were not accepted as servicemen. Some were enlisted by the army and taken to Fort Ritchie. But the men who actually escaped the nazis and then came here and fought for this country--against what was once 'home'...can you even imagine?

Eric Schwarzkopf fought for the two most famous units of the war, he was a pathfinder which was considered one of the the most dangerous/important jobs in the war.

Had this man chosen not to stay quiet about his feats and to write about them, he would have been considered notable. But just because someone doesn't write about what they've done, does that make them any less noteworthy? I hope you see my pov.

My dilemma is, however, in verifying. I can get word of mouth, etc... but alot of army documents were burned in the fire of '73. so I am having trouble with that.

Please let me know what you think...and as always thanks so much!Nomoreworldwar 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You are very welcome, and your points are both interesting and pertinant. Let me adress them one at a time.

First of all, your focus on the word verifiability is very germane. Here at Wikipedia we attribute very specific and defined meanings to certain words. We then throw the words around assuming that everyone knows what we mean by it, even when it does not equate with a wider, or more accepted meaning. This is one of our major problems: we purport to be the encyclopaedia that everyone can edit, then we define rules using our own codified language that is confusing to all but the most experienced Wikipedians. To address this we tried to boil down the three core issues that governs inclusion into Wikipedia into a single policy, Wikipedia:Attribution, thereby getting around the problems with interepretation of the word verifiability. We haven't been entirely successful (yet), but I think we will get there, and in the meantime WP:ATT is the best place to try and appreciate the basis for article inclusion.

Secondly, regarding Schwarzkopf, I do see you POV, and I largely agree with you. Your question (I'm not sure if it was rhetorical, but I'm going to try and answer it anyway) is thought-provoking:

Had this man chosen not to stay quiet about his feats and to write about them, he would have been considered notable. But just because someone doesn't write about what they've done, does that make them any less noteworthy?

In the literal sense, I agree he is "notable", in that he is, in my opinion, worthy of notice. However deciding whether someone is worthy of notice in this manner is an inherently subjective decision, albeit one on which you and I agree. To address this subjectivity, Wikipedia takes the decision out of our hands. It's criteria for noteworthiness is whether other independent and reliable sources consider the person to be noteworthy. So from our perspective, had Schwarzkopf chosen to write a book, then he would be notable, because a publisher would have already established his story was noteworthy, and we could reflect that. Since he hasn't, and it appears that no-one else has recounted his story, he doesn't meet our criteria. This is the Wikipedia-specific meaning of the word notable, explained in detail at WP:N. So is this fair? Probably not. Does it lead to certain biases? Yes. But, for better or worse, thats how our project works.

So where to from here? There are so many biographies of trivial people with questionable notability, lacking references, on Wikipedia that yours certainly doesn't stand out. Moreover, it is not trivial - the guy clearly is "noteworthy" to some extent even if he doesn't meet out notability criteria. As an administrator, I could speedy delete now, but I'm not going to do that because there are much more pressing things I can spend my time doing. However, the reason I brought this up in the first place is that unless you (or someone else) can come up with some references establishing notability per our criteria, it could be tagged for speedy deletion by any other editor at any time. If that happens, the closing administrator will probably delete it, since there is no good reason within our policies that it should be kept. If I was the closing admin I would delete it, because we admins can't make exceptions from policy just because we personally consider the guy to be notable.

So to some extent, it doesn't really matter what my or your opinion is on this matter, what is important, if you wish to ensure this article is kept, that it has established notability as Wikipedia defines it. The only other way to do it would be to convince the community to change our criteria for notability. Good luck trying that, though! Rockpocket 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket

I just had a birthday, travel, and so much going on--so forgive me for the late return...

You expressed your reasoning beautifully. And I thank you for it. As per what you write, even if I were able to get info from the government to back up Schwarzkopf's account, the fact that he is not in a book or something like that...makes him not notable anyway?

As always your help is more than appreciated! I am going to trust that you will find this without my visiting your page and alerting you to the fact this note is up. My very very best!Nomoreworldwar 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! Government documents are certainly helpful, the exact nature of them and what they say would determine exactly how helpful, but reliable sources come in all forms. Rockpocket 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, Rockpocket

you really are so wonderful in your willingness to answer all questions etc...okay...please bear with me...some stuff in real life and less time right this moment to focus on this...I do however feel much better knowing you are there! you are a doll!Nomoreworldwar 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]