DanielWeinreb
 | This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.
|
A tag has been placed on Daniel Weinreb, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 68.161.167.178 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply To Above
Hi. I have added citations to my publications, and tried to better explain the significance of my work. I hope this is OK.
Welcome
A general welcome to you; I'm always surprised how many of the figures mentioned in articles on old CS topics eventually show up editing articles - first User:Rmstallman, then User:Russell Noftsker. and now you.
Anyway, as I told Noftsker[1], it's particularly important for people in your sort of position to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. For instance, take your edit to Lisp machine[2]; while you may well have been there or discussed it back then with involved person, and so are quite certain of the accuracy of your edit, hapless onlooking editors (such as myself, who had written that bit based on what I'd read in Newquist's book and a few other things like some Stallman speeches) don't know what to think or whether to revert the edit for being unsourced or for not flowing with the other text (ie, if the two companies didn't poach the majority of hackers, then why are only two listed as not having been poached, and where did all of LMI and Symbolic's employees come from?) and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 13:09 25 August 2007 (GMT)
- Ping. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 25 August 2007 (GMT)
Thanks for your swift revert and apology. That's always welcome. If the situation should change please do revisit the edit and provide verification. --TS 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)