Richardedlich

your article

As reviewing administrator, I saw your article was proposed for deletion. You should have been notified about that; on behalf of the encyclopedia , I apologize for the discourtesy. It seems very clear that he is very notable indeed, and we should certainly have an article. As there is an excellent third party reference available, I removed the deletion tag.

I am not sure whether you are i Dr. Edlich himself, or editing in his behalf. But in either case, we have rules about Conflict of Interest. Even with Conflict of Interest you may edit, provided you do so objectively. It is not advised, because experience shows that a person will have great difficulty writing an objective article about themselves In this case, the article appears to have been copied from some prior publication, which I have not yet identified. This is not permitted--we must scrupulously respect copyright. If you own the rights to the material, you can explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing; however, I would very strongly advise that you not do so; even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable, as indeed it is not. Neither is the text of the reference as it stands, if you obtained copyright permission for that also. However, it can certainly be used as a source to construct a proper article.

I have considerable experience here on articles of this nature, and I intend to do a brief rewrite. But perhaps you might do so first, and I will adjust it to our stylistic details. Here's a guide for our style in this:

First, give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. List the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Web of Science. Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio.

Dr. Edlich apparently has notable students who would qualify for Wikipedia bios, so do include them. It would be really good to add the articles on them also, if not already present. List the awards, but distinguish these from the awards named in the subjects honor--these too should be included, but separately. Describe the research, but briefly; include references only to the most important papers.

It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference.As a matter of style, we refer to the subject in our articles by their last names only, without the "Dr.", and we avoid using the name at all more than necessary. I already changed some of them to "he"

Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid WP:Peacock terms describing the importance of the research. If we already have article on those subject fields, link to them, and possibly make a reference to the subject's work, if he has a key role, as seems the case for at least some of them. If not, you could really help us by starting these articles--but that's your choice, of course.

If I can help you with any of this, let me know on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:07, 24 February 2011‎

What is your talk page? You didn't put your username on here. Richardedlich (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)