Quotes
editJonathan Karp
edit
Source: Old revision of Talk:Jonathan Karpmaterial shown here is not a creative artistic process. The author, not the publisher, normally has the primary intellectual responsibility. Editing or publishing in the sense used here is normally a business proposition...
Article saved from Speedy delete
sources are reliable & support the article, so it is certainly not a hoax But I gather from them that this was one of a number of very similar cases ruled on simultaneously. I would suggest writing an article on the group
Source: Old revision of Talk:Al-Haramain_v._Obama
It is standard practice to redirect journals that are not quite notable to the publisher page. Similarly with journals that are going to be notable, but for which the articles have not yet been written. True, the advantage or red-links is that people see the article needs to be written--but they have no way of distinguishing whether it needs to be written, or it should not be written. With most browsers , a redirect link shows up differently from a link to an article, so people seeing them on a list will realize/ (at least people used to Wikipedia will, and for those who are simply readers and don't catch the difference, the redirect will go to whatever information there is.
What I am not sure about is whether to have redlinks or listings for journals that are absolutely not notable in the least. I can see the merits either way (there's a similar argument in university libraries, whether to enter all available open-access journals in the catalog, whether or not the library would subscribe to them if it cost money--most libraries do not do so, on the principle that it sends unsophisticated students the wrong message about their usefulness; a few do, on the principle that at least it gives some information, & the library is not to judge.) But certainly in any borderline case a redirect is appropriate.
There a topics where we stringently insist that nothing should be entered on a list unless it's notable , either having an article or clearly worth it. I don't know whether that should apply here. I can argue both ways. (In some cases, such as lists of notable alumni, I think it makes very good sense to exclude the non-notble). DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Source: Old revision of Talk:List of mathematics journals
Tom Morris asked me to comment with respect to NPOV. As I see it, the problems concern both that and emphasis. The article is about the act. It is not about the problem of rape kit backlogs; that would be a separate article. Section 4, "Rape Kit Backlogs still a Problem" is therefore inappropriate--or at least the title is--it might be possible to write a section entitled "Consequences" or Impact-- but if it does, it must try to get information about to what extent the act has succeeded in addressing the problem from a wider range of sources, with a particular try to see if there are any reporting it has done some good in some places. Reading the CBS source relied on--and it seems to be a very good source-- there are two things of significance not included in the summary: one state at least has said the act has helped it solve a number of cases, and a number of states have explained why many kits in their possession are not needed for testing--expiration of the statue of limitations, a person having pled guilt to the charges, a victim unwilling to press charges, insufficient evidence of a crime, or the person being known otherwise. In particular, the detail about Los Angeles may be inappropriate emphasis on its particular problems. Second, the information about the crime that led to the act is too detailed. If there were an article about the victim or the perpetrator under our BLP rules, the detail might be appropriate, but it is not here. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Source: Old revision of Talk:Debbie_Smith_Act
Giles Milton
editI did an extensive general copyed 1/. "historian" inappropriate for writer of popular boos who is not a scholar. 2/ Removed excessive use of his name & book titles. 3/The existing article is first of all highly promotional, and written in a style that would normally indicate his major works are intended for children--I am rewritinjg in more mature English. 4/ More work to go. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Source: Old revision of Talk:Giles Milton
Further edits Old revision of Giles Milton