Dk3298371
Welcome!
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Air Quality Egg edit
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Dk3298371 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)AfC notification: Draft:Stephen V. Cameron has a new comment edit
Hello, you requested an article on her, but I fail to find any publications by her. I assume they could be found under her maiden name? Also, a Fulbright fellowship certainly isn't enough to meet WP:NACADEMICS #2. Currently, I don't even consider this to be an appropriate redirect, nor an info that should be in the article about Stephen V. Cameron. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Axolotl Nr.733: I don't have strong opinions on this. Fulbright, as a highly competitive national and international award (see the Wikipedia article), could be considered a criteria for notability under WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMICS. Notability is _not_ required for a redirect in my understanding, merely information elsewhere in Wikipedia on the person. A sentence on the spouse is frequently included in other Wikipedia bios under "personal life" even if the spouse is not at all notable (many examples). The information has verifiable citations/sources. Certainly if the spouse has won a highly competitive award it might warrant a sentence in an article about a notable husband. As mentioned, though, I don't have a strong opinion on this.
I don't have further information on the subject, such as maiden name or further publications, unfortunately. Obviously, there must be publications to obtain a PhD from a major university. Dk3298371 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Axolotl Nr.733:In deference to your opinion, I have removed the request for an article about her.Dk3298371 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that notability isn't a requirement for a redirect. However, I see a verification problem. Intelius or Rate my Professors aren't proper sources, and you draw conclusions out of them that they do not back up, even if these conclusions seem probable (that they are married; that his wife, the BCC CUNY faculty member and the Fulbright fellow are actually the same person). And I just don't see the need for the redirect nor for the information in the article. It's nothing of public interest. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Axolotl Nr.733:This is the same Marianne E. Cameron because there are other (trivial) sources. The sources I cited have Marianne E. Cameron studying at Brigham Young and U Chicago at the same time as Stephen V. Cameron, and subsequent searches on Marianne E. Cameron on US Search and Intelius have her living in those same places and same address as Stephen V. Cameron. Intelius and US Search derive their information from US Public records, so other sources obviously exist and can be tracked down, although doing so would be a pain. (They might be birth, marriage, court records, yellow pages from various cities, etc., which might be found in some dusty libraries.) Both Columbia University and BCC CUNY have media relations departments that write official bios and have in the past dealt with Wikipedia entries. Rather trying to locate the original public records off which the US Search, Intelius, and what I call other "trivial" sources are based, I suggest someone contact these media relations departments and ask them to confirm the information on their official bios (or some other way). Contacting them might violate some Wikipedia rule or cause other issues (will it?), so I'm reluctant to do this myself, but will at least throw it out as a suggestion that could save some labor. We already have 3rd party sources for this, the official media relations source would just be an additional source to use in response to your criticism. I cannot immediate an official media relations department at a place like BCC CUNY agreeing with your statement that their faculty member's research is "nothing of public interest" (even as a footnote in another person's bio!) so your criticism here should at least prompt them to action even if they have a dog in this fight. (Similarly, I cannot imagine the spouse of a faculty member arguing that his spouse's research is not of public interest, although anything is possible.) Hopefully, these media relations departments would cooperate (assuming this doesn't violate Wikipedia rules?) and then an official bio or other official source could be cited rather than a long string of trivial public records like phone books to replace the Intelius citation. It would also give confidence that the subjects agree (or disagree) that they are notable, and that the information should (or should not) public. (We could add the US Search as a citation, which provides the middle initial and a slightly different list of cities for the two. There are other sites that could also be listed as citations.) Finally, I have mainly relied on Google for these searches, and have neglected many other possible sources. Most associate professors at Ivy universities had a Marquis Whos Who entry for them at some point, which usually lists the spouse. I don't have access to Marquis Whos Who or a reference library, but perhaps someone who does can add these sources as citations. If I can think of Marquis Whos Who, I'm sure there are many additional secondary sources about either Marianne E. Cameron or Stephen V. Cameron that could be obtained through someone with access to Lexis Nexus, which I also don't have access to. What do you think about these various suggestions as a plan? If Wikipedia rules permit, would you be willing to contact media relations at both Columbia University and BCC CUNY and ask them for comment on the bio, ask them to confirm/deny the accuracy of the multiple Intelius/US Search/etc public records, etc., ask them if they object to this information being public, etc.?Dk3298371 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Axolotl Nr.733:(Continued from above)I just found out the default infobox for "person" (bio) has a slot for spouses. The spouses do not need to be notable to be included in this infobox. Since it is not possible to put citations in the infobox (I believe), the citations would normally go in a sentence providing the names of the spouses. Therefore, in my view, since this information is normally part of a bio infobox, there can only be two objections to including it: (1) the subject(s) object to this information being public, hence my suggestion to contact the media relations offices above if Wikipedia rules permit (or unless you have information of such objection somehow) (2) there are no sources for the information. In this case, for either (1) or (2), I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that either one or both of these objections are valid in this case. For objection (2), there are multiple sources in this case both already cited in the article and now discussed in my comment above. There are likely additional ones such as old Marquis Whos Who and the marriage certificates the form the basis of the reports in the citations. I do not currently have access to these, but many other Wikipedians do have access to these sources. If you believe that there might be additional PhD historians named Marianne E. Camerons who were students at both Brigham and University of Chicago at the same times, then at this point the burden should be on you to obtain a source for your theory. Contacting media relations at these institutions and asking them to vet the bio would seem like a reasonable thing to do. In Googling I also learned just now that the US State Department provides an email address for requests to research past Fulbright Fellows. Again, assuming this does not violate Wikipedia policy, you could also ask the US State Department to vet this bio as well. Does this violate Wikipedia guidelines, and, if not, would you or another Wikipedian be willing to contact these institutions?Dk3298371 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea why one would put so much effort in trying to evaluate if some fairly notable scholar is married to a non-notable one. I'm pretty sure what you've already done and, even more so, what you suggest to do would be considered original research by many Wikipedians, but I have absolutely no desire to elaborate on that topic any further. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Carolyn Heinrich has been accepted edit
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Draft:Stephen V. Cameron listed at Redirects for discussion edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Stephen V. Cameron. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Stephen V. Cameron redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gluons12 talk 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Dk3298371. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Precious edit
composers and discographies
Thank you for quality articles such as Carolyn Heinrich, for expanding such as Henry Mazer, for "Perfecting changes to infobox", for working miracles on the many links of the Georg Solti discography, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1667 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Irwin Leroy Fischer has been accepted edit
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Dk3298371. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:George P. Shultz has been nominated for discussion edit
Category:George P. Shultz, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)