User talk:Statisticalregression/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello Statisticalregression! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jmlk17 06:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nova (English school in Japan)

Hi, if your going to make a lot of changes on the Nova page, may I recommend that you edit your changes outside of WP on a text editor (notepad or the like) because sometimes WP may crash or someone else may change the page and you dont want to lose your edits. Also you might want to consider editing some other pages on WP so that your account is not defined as a single purpose account WP:SPA. I probably wont be doing so much editing on the page from now, but I am interested to see how your edits progress. Good luck with the page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I've had a few problems with making a small edit that works when I check the 'preview' but totally missed how mistakes that I had made with cite/link/ref type code wrecked another part. I had lost a larger edit when there was some kind of editing conflict (another user working on something) and that didn't improve my skills as I have been tending to make tiny changes one at a time. I have a few pages in mind to edit just gathering sources, thnks for the inputStatisticalregression 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Louis Carlet

This is to inform you that you are breaking the three-revert rule. If you revert the article again you will be reported to an admin and possibly blocked form WP for disruption. If you want to add dubious sources please follow the dispute resolution process. I have told you repeatedly to add the information to NUGW instead. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the 3RR rule, it applies to everyone. You have nominated the Louis Carlet article to be merged with the NUGW page, but there hasn't been enough time to allow for a consensus (at the last counting it was 1 in favor of merge and 2 against). The merge issue hasn't been decided but you have already taken it upon yourself to subsequently move the information to the proposed merge page but the article still exists and I don't see how your actions impact my ability to add information to an article that still exists on it's own. Furthermore, you twice removed links that now you find acceptable. I am not the one disputing the veracity of the 3 remaining links, you are. You have repeatedly told me to add the links to the NUGW page but this is unnecessary as the Carlet article is still in existence. I have repeatedly asked you to allow time for the merge request that you initiated as we only have 3 people who have commented on the proposal.Statisticalregression 08:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying a merge discussion is fine under WP policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please cite the WP policy you are referring to? I checked WP:MERGE, while I did see mention of 'overlap' as a cause for merging, I didn't see 'clarifying a merge nomination by creating an overlap that didn't previously exist'.
• did you move the material from the Carlet article to the NUGW article to demonstrate that it could be done?
• what if I clarify the merge discussion by Rv the Carlet material you added? and then you Rv my changes then I Rv and around and around we go....Statisticalregression 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like the Japan Times links you added, but rather than deleting them outright I will consider them over the next few days. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you retained the sources but noticed that you then deleted them - I think the JT are relevant to the Carlet article but don't see a use for them on the NUGW page either.Statisticalregression 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't make WP pages for people simply because they wrote an article in a newspaper. If that was the case then everyone who ever wrote anything for any newspaper would have a page.-- Sparkzilla talk! 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've never professed anything to that effect - I didn't create the article, nor did I take part in the AFD discussion, I've only commented on the merge and added material to the article.Statisticalregression 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My restructuring of NUGW makes the Carlet article even more unecessary and irrespective of the merge result, I will be pushing for its deletion due to duplication of content. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Pushing for deletion is totally your prerogative to do, although if the merge nomination fails there will be no reason (or basis) for retaining the Carlet material you moved to the NUGW page. Statisticalregression 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Notabiltity of Union Reps

The following standards are probably most applicable to a Union Rep:

1. The person has been the subject of significant articles in reliable published sources
2. The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
3. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
4. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (generally meets the first criterion)
5. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

These are condensed from among the general criteria for BIO. Only in some special cases are there more specific criteria, and frankly when someone qualifies under a special criteria they probably would have qualified under one of the above. It seems likely that a notable union rep would make it easilly under item #1. Please let me know if I can help in a specific article. --Kevin Murray 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, I will see if I can find any sources that meet those standards. Item 4 is a bit cryptic to me, when demonstrating wide name recognition how do comments on subjects in newspapers fit in (if at all)? If a person is quoted in 10 or 15 newspaper articles on different issue would that apply to name recognition?

Pursuiant to: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." (from WP:BIO-Statisticalregression 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is no truly objective standard for notability; it really is not possible. We wrangle with it constantly with no success and our guidelines are a result of compromises which result in some level of confusion. However, AfD is generally pretty liberal about well written articles with reasonable references. The articles by the subject should not be included in the reference section and are better referenced as "works" like the example at Daniel Terdiman. Overall the references to the subject at your article are pretty weak. I think that seeing him quoted frequently builds notability as long as the quotes are independent and the media that quote him are independent of him and of each other. If an NBC employee is quoted frequently on NBC news that probably won't fly. If a person who is independent of NBC was quoted on NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, and in a rerun of an NBC documentary on Discovery, and nowhere else, I'd question the notability -- but now we are delving deeply into my personal opinion which carries little weight. Please let me know if I can help any more. --Kevin Murray 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I really don't think that Louis meets these criteria. I think that user:nandesuka incorrectly interpreted the debate, and, so I followed wikipolicy by asking for a review. I not really interested in following up on this, but I just don't see him being notable. my question about elected officials is that it is my opinion that individuals elected by their community should be notable in wikipedia, however, this is not the case. Being an elected offical by itself does not indicate notability, so, therefore, my logic is that a union offical should not be considered notable just because he is a union official. I guess that would becomes a bit of a pointist argument but at the same time it seems valid to consider the five points of notability above, and, until someone at the very least decided to write an idependent biography or article about him, then i wouldn't consider him notable.

The irony is that a journalist interested in him might look him up on wikipedia, and say, hey, he has a wikipedia page, so he must be important to write about. so, wikipedia then becomes the decider of notablility. interesting topic of conversation, who actually decided what is notable in the world and what isn't? XinJeisan 07:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point XinJ, and Kevin Murry mentioned above, there's no truly objective standard for notability. Personally I think that's a problem, there should be clear cut rules. I have more sources, and just got an article about him in the Mainichi. I'm assuming you're considering nom. for Afd, if you feel compelled to that's fine although it would be nice to have a little time to go through what I have about him. I haven't really had an opportunity to add anything as it's been in a contentious situation since I came across it. I'm just suggesting attempting to improve it and failing that an Afd would be warranted. Oh, an on the subject of elected officials not always being notable - I'm not sure where you are, but where I live the local government officials might have less than 100 voting for them, and the officials might meet 4 times a year at best. I'd say that elected officials aren't always notable, but in most cases are.Statisticalregression 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going on extended, enforced wikibreak, so, I am not personally going to be doing and AfD, but at the very least I wanted to follow through with process (an obsession with wikipolitics and process the past few weeks is one of the reasons I want to go on wikibreak) in case someone else wants to re-nominate for AfD or even go through the process of reviewing the reasons for keep. good luck with your search, though. XinJeisan 09:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)