Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com: It's not a matter of whether Wikipedia can work with you. It's a matter of whether it wants to. You've been banned, which means it doesn't want to work with you. It's not an inability, it's a choice. Many individuals on Wikipedia were deeply opposed to the ban in question, and continue to be opposed. So when you 'it doesn't want to work with you', it's not clear what 'it' means. In any case, there is nothing to stop a banned individual from working with others to improve the project. The question comes down to whether the project is to be improved or not. For example, when our book on Scotus appears, what happens if any of the facts cited in the book are then incorporated into the article? Is copying from a book 'written by a banned user' something that Wikipedia will 'choose' not to do? What happens if I read out passages from the book to someone like Charles, and he edits the article using his own account. Is that prohibited by the 'banned' rule? In any case, I can't see anything in the banning policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN that prohibits this. Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the first place. The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work. I have pointed out some serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia? So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Editing on behalf of banned users is against policy. Working with banned users isn't, but taking dictation from them would probably cross the line. If you had been banned for being a specialist, the public would be understandably surprised, but you weren't. On May 28, 2012 9:49 AM, Edward at Logic Museum edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com: It's not a matter of whether Wikipedia can work with you. It's a matter of whether it wants to. You've been banned, which means it doesn't want to work with you. It's not an inability, it's a choice. Many individuals on Wikipedia were deeply opposed to the ban in question, and continue to be opposed. So when you 'it doesn't want to work with you', it's not clear what 'it' means. In any case, there is nothing to stop a banned individual from working with others to improve the project. The question comes down to whether the project is to be improved or not. For example, when our book on Scotus appears, what happens if any of the facts cited in the book are then incorporated into the article? Is copying from a book 'written by a banned user' something that Wikipedia will 'choose' not to do? What happens if I read out passages from the book to someone like Charles, and he edits the article using his own account. Is that prohibited by the 'banned' rule? In any case, I can't see anything in the banning policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:BANhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BANthat prohibits this. Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the first place. The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work. I have pointed out some serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia? So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice. __**_ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Not a criticism, just curious. Why do you not just improve the article(s) yourself, rather than devising a plan to involve many others - which would inevitably take a great deal of time and effort, and not necessarily achieve a much better result? Do you think it would be worth the time and effort to have a worthwhile article on one of Britain's greatest philosopher theologians? There are many errors in the present article, as I have already pointed out, and it is seriously incomplete. The plan need not be necessarily very complex. I propose meeting up with someone like Charles Matthews or another trusted and competent editor (I have the highest regard for the quality of Charles' editing). I could do the key parts of the research separately - indeed, as I mentioned, there is much material Jack Zupko and I eliminated from the current version of the forthcoming book which is not copyrighted, and which could be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Plus much other material which has formed part of separate research (reliably sourced, of course, no original research!). Then I could provide the material to Charles or someone, he could upload it, and I could dictate the usual changes connected with linking, wikifying and so on. I will copy this to Charles in case he is interested. I could also ask if other specialists in Scotist studies would like to be involved. It would also be a great piece of PR, showing that Wikipedia and Wikimedia can 'work with the system' to involve even those who are banned from the project, but who want to improve it. It would involve 'outreach' if other medieval specialists could be involved. Also, I still have contacts in the world of higher education journalism who would love to publish something about this. So what's the point in having people here, who are banned from WP? That's very hurtful. Just because I am banned from Wikipedia, for an incident entirely unrelated to the quality of my editing, does not mean I cannot usefully contribute to the project. I was working with one of the top medieval scholars for the Scotus book, and I have contributed many many articles on medieval philosophy and logic to Wikipedia in the past. I am probably one of the longest serving editors contributing to this forum (since July 2003). Just because someone is banned, does not mean they cannot contribute usefully to the project. That's a horrid form of discrimination. Ed ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 25 May 2012 12:50, Edward at Logic Museum edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: It would also be a great piece of PR, showing that Wikipedia and Wikimedia can 'work with the system' to involve even those who are banned from the project, but who want to improve it. It's not a matter of whether Wikipedia can work with you. It's a matter of whether it wants to. You've been banned, which means it doesn't want to work with you. It's not an inability, it's a choice. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Roger said The board backed a man with a plan. It does this frequently
and I believe the offer is open to ladies too. OK here is a plan. Here
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Expert_outreach it says Wikimedia UK is
working with scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help
experts improve Wikipedia and its sister projects, bringing their knowledge
to the widest possible public. I don't know why Wikipedia officially needs
experts, given the proven success of crowdsourcing, but in any case I have
many contacts in the expert world of medieval studies, and could certainly
help with a plan to improve the pages on the medieval intellectual
tradition, which are dire. E.g. the page on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus Scotus, who was one of the most
significant medieval thinkers, and a credit to Scotland (or England,
actually, given that his birthplace may have in England at the time,
although Wikipedia does not mention this).
The current article is in a terrible state. It repeats the legend about
Scotus' premature burial, which has for a long time been conclusively
refuted
http://lyfaber.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/heres-few-weird-quotes-i-ran-across.html ,
and no modern biography mentions it. It says he is the 'founder of Scotism'
which is bizarre ('Scotism' so-called was a later idea). It says 'he came
out of the Old Franciscan School' which is not mentioned in any modern
discussion of Scotus (I suspect it is a plagiarism from the Catholic
Encyclopedia). Even more bizarrely it says Duns Scotus is usually
considered the beginning of the formal Scottish tradition of philosophy
which moved through Duns Scotus, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Reid and
John Stuart Mill. There is no such movement, at least no direct
relationship, and the claim is absurd.
The sections on his thought, like all such sections in the Wikipedia
biographies of thinkers, is risibly light. We know very little of the lives
of medieval theologians and philosophers, yet we know much about their
thought, and a good reference work should reflect this, as well as making
the difficulties of their thought intelligible to a general audience. I'm
sure crowdsourcing could achieve this, as Thomas Dalton says, but it hasn't
so far after more than ten years of Wikipedia. Some of those sections I
wrote anyway.
Or compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_logic, which is merely a
list, with the much longer and far more comprehensive article here
http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Summa_Logicae_(Ockham) .
Anyway, enough criticism. I have a plan for working with WMUK to improve
these articles, and if anyone is interested in the details, let me know.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Not a criticism, just curious. Why do you not just improve the article(s)
yourself, rather than devising a plan to involve many others - which would
inevitably take a great deal of time and effort, and not necessarily achieve a
much better result?
From: edw...@logicmuseum.com
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:59:01 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Roger said The board backed a man with a plan. It does this frequently
and I believe the offer is open to ladies too. OK here is a plan. Here
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Expert_outreach it says Wikimedia UK is
working with scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help
experts improve Wikipedia and its sister projects, bringing their knowledge
to the widest possible public. I don't know why Wikipedia officially needs
experts, given the proven success of crowdsourcing, but in any case I have
many contacts in the expert world of medieval studies, and could certainly
help with a plan to improve the pages on the medieval intellectual
tradition, which are dire. E.g. the page on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus Scotus, who was one of the most
significant medieval thinkers, and a credit to Scotland (or England,
actually, given that his birthplace may have in England at the time,
although Wikipedia does not mention this).
The current article is in a terrible state. It repeats the legend about
Scotus' premature burial, which has for a long time been conclusively
refuted
http://lyfaber.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/heres-few-weird-quotes-i-ran-across.html
,
and no modern biography mentions it. It says he is the 'founder of Scotism'
which is bizarre ('Scotism' so-called was a later idea). It says 'he came
out of the Old Franciscan School' which is not mentioned in any modern
discussion of Scotus (I suspect it is a plagiarism from the Catholic
Encyclopedia). Even more bizarrely it says Duns Scotus is usually
considered the beginning of the formal Scottish tradition of philosophy
which moved through Duns Scotus, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Reid and
John Stuart Mill. There is no such movement, at least no direct
relationship, and the claim is absurd.
The sections on his thought, like all such sections in the Wikipedia
biographies of thinkers, is risibly light. We know very little of the lives
of medieval theologians and philosophers, yet we know much about their
thought, and a good reference work should reflect this, as well as making
the difficulties of their thought intelligible to a general audience. I'm
sure crowdsourcing could achieve this, as Thomas Dalton says, but it hasn't
so far after more than ten years of Wikipedia. Some of those sections I
wrote anyway.
Or compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_logic, which is merely a
list, with the much longer and far more comprehensive article here
http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Summa_Logicae_(Ockham) .
Anyway, enough criticism. I have a plan for working with WMUK to improve
these articles, and if anyone is interested in the details, let me know.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
One problem with crowd sourcing is clearly that people feel the need to repeat what others have already said. ;-) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:06:44 +0100 From: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham On 25 May 2012 10:55, Guy Hamilton ghmyr...@hotmail.com wrote: Oh. So what's the point in having people here, who are banned from WP? A ban from the English Wikipedia is not a ban from Commons, Wikisource, and in fact from about 600+ other Wikimedia projects. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 25 May 2012 11:08, Guy Hamilton ghmyr...@hotmail.com wrote: One problem with crowd sourcing is clearly that people feel the need to repeat what others have already said. ;-) One problem with email is that people sometimes assume it is a synchronous medium. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 25 May 2012 11:01, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Indeed - just because one is banned from Wikipedia, doesn't mean they are banned from Commons, Wikiversity, Wikinews, the other projects or Meta. However, I believe Edward is also banned from WMUK events, which would make it a little difficult for him to organise WMUK initiatives... ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Its the community's job to improve the wiki projects. WMUK didn't put a pin in the map to chose Monmouth. The board backed a man with a plan. It does this frequently and I believe the offer is open to ladies too. A person, a university, a club or a business can suggest that the board fund work in line with our mission. There are a large number of cities that could do with more attention. We now have a model of what a town might look like when its (kind of) finished And we know that we can do the mission one town at a time. Roger On 22 May 2012 22:35, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 22/05/12 10:30, Edward at Logic Museum wrote: Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia? No. Just good PR? Gordo __**_ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger Bamkin 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Gordon writes Time to return another town. how about this quaint little hamlet (started as WikiProject in 2002)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London How ironic. I had several London articles deleted or cut short as a result of the absurd 'community ban' that is still in force. One article, about an important London landmark and institution, is still deleted, and I am still waiting for someone to spot the fact and act - that was two years ago. The article about the London Greyfriars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_London was restored after deletion by Sandstein, but was only half completed. You can see roughly what the completed version would be like here http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Greyfriars,_London (although the section on the library would not be appropriate for Wikipedia). Wikipedia has no article on the Carmelite friary in London http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Carmelite_friary,_London, and the list of Franciscan friaries in England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Franciscan_monasteries_in_England seems woefully incomplete (that may just be poor categorisation, I haven't checked). The Oxford Greyfriars article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_Oxford is also seriously inadequate. I did much research on that friary as part of my forthcoming book on Duns Scotus, much of which did not find its way into the book, but would have been ideal for a Wikipedia article. There is an enormous amount of London material missing. Look at the article on Knightsbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightsbridge. I started the original article on Chelsea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_London which is not much better than when I originally wrote it. There was no requirement for citations in those days, and I note the 'citation needed' template is still there from 2008. Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia? Edward ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
News Flash: Wikipedia isn't finished yet! Film at 11! On 22 May 2012 10:30, Edward at Logic Museum edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: Gordon writes Time to return another town. how about this quaint little hamlet (started as WikiProject in 2002)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London How ironic. I had several London articles deleted or cut short as a result of the absurd 'community ban' that is still in force. One article, about an important London landmark and institution, is still deleted, and I am still waiting for someone to spot the fact and act - that was two years ago. The article about the London Greyfriars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_London was restored after deletion by Sandstein, but was only half completed. You can see roughly what the completed version would be like here http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Greyfriars,_London (although the section on the library would not be appropriate for Wikipedia). Wikipedia has no article on the Carmelite friary in London http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Carmelite_friary,_London, and the list of Franciscan friaries in England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Franciscan_monasteries_in_England seems woefully incomplete (that may just be poor categorisation, I haven't checked). The Oxford Greyfriars article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_Oxford is also seriously inadequate. I did much research on that friary as part of my forthcoming book on Duns Scotus, much of which did not find its way into the book, but would have been ideal for a Wikipedia article. There is an enormous amount of London material missing. Look at the article on Knightsbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightsbridge. I started the original article on Chelsea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_London which is not much better than when I originally wrote it. There was no requirement for citations in those days, and I note the 'citation needed' template is still there from 2008. Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia? Edward ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 22/05/12 10:30, Edward at Logic Museum wrote: Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia? No. Just good PR? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Oh, but I would love to see somebody try to stick a plaque on Buckingham Palace without being shot and/or arrested! Harry From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 21 May 2012, 13:30 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham 106 FAs - that must be close to a record for any one place outside of Chicago. Perhaps the next project should be somewhere where we don't yet have so much featured content, but an easier town to get to than Monmouth? Better yet, the UK chapter could invite bids from Wikimedians who want the Monmouthpedia experience in their abode, and councils who'd like to pitch for the title. Wikipedia town of the year is the sort of accolade that some councils would really like to get, and if the Council is behind it then every museum they grant fund should be reasonably cooperative. If Monmouthpedia were morphed in a Wikipedia town of the year award then I believe we'd have something that could run indefinitely WSC On 21 May 2012 08:45, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 19/05/12 22:44, Thomas Dalton wrote: It seems the biggest challenge for editing workshops is finding suitable topics for people to create articles about (I think a lot of people just edit existing articles, which is much easier). It's particularly difficult for Monmonth since pretty much everything notable in the town already has an article! My experience is that how do I create an article comes very high on the list of FAQs in workshops. Hence, I have suggested divorcing MediaWiki skills from Wikipedia skills (as dictated by the experience levels of participants). So, Monmouth is done and dusted? Time to return another town. how about this quaint little hamlet (started as WikiProject in 2002)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 21 May 2012 13:42, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com wrote: Oh, but I would love to see somebody try to stick a plaque on Buckingham Palace without being shot and/or arrested! 1. Get Jimbo honorary knighthood. 2. Ask nicely. 3. Who knows! - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
The trick is to do it like the chap who did Toynbee Tiles [1] did. That way no-one notices until months later. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toynbee_tiles Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 21 May 2012 14:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 13:42, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com wrote: Oh, but I would love to see somebody try to stick a plaque on Buckingham Palace without being shot and/or arrested! 1. Get Jimbo honorary knighthood. 2. Ask nicely. 3. Who knows! - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Now, if only we had a Wikipedian in Residence there. Oh, wait... we do! Perhaps Andrew could help. :D On 19/05/2012 23:03, Richard Symonds wrote: Worth a trip to the British Library for one of our London based members? Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On May 19, 2012 11:00 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 19 May 2012 22:44, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com mailto:thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: As I feared when we discussed this article early today, I'm not really sure she is notable... I think that's why you can't find suitable references to establish notability. I'd be very surprised if an author of at least nine novels, all published by a single mainstream publisher (implying commercial success) with some republished in large print editions, had manage to garner no press coverage, interviews, or reviews. That they have been published over a period starting in 1976 means that such coverage is likely to pre-date the web and may never have been available electronically. I'm also a little concerned that a large portion (over a third) of the article I think you're miscounting. is copied word for word from the publisher's biography of her (the 2nd reference). It's only one and a half sentences and its the obvious way to convey that information, so it wouldn't usually be a problem, but the article is just so short that it is quite significant. SOFIXIT! -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On May 20, 2012 8:34 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 19 May 2012 20:59, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It's not looking promising... hmm Given there are Monmouth MPs without articles and with sources, there is an issue of priorities. YMMV of course. Pardon me if I regard supporting a new editor in creating and developing their first article as a priority. As always, you're entitled to ask for a refund. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 20 May 2012 09:29, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On May 20, 2012 8:34 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 19 May 2012 20:59, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It's not looking promising... hmm Given there are Monmouth MPs without articles and with sources, there is an issue of priorities. YMMV of course. Pardon me if I regard supporting a new editor in creating and developing their first article as a priority. As always, you're entitled to ask for a refund. Hmm, removing a PROD which was fairly reasonable seems to have resulted in an immediate AfD. The deep end, really. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
The first (only?) article created in Monmouth during today's festivities was a biography of the author A V Denham. I've just removed a proposed PROD deletion template from it, but it dos need more references, to establish notability. I've searched on Google and HighBeam, and found nothing suitable, Can anyone provide suitable references, please? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
It's not looking promising... hmm Richard Symonds On May 19, 2012 8:51 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: The first (only?) article created in Monmouth during today's festivities was a biography of the author A V Denham. I've just removed a proposed PROD deletion template from it, but it dos need more references, to establish notability. I've searched on Google and HighBeam, and found nothing suitable, Can anyone provide suitable references, please? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
As I feared when we discussed this article early today, I'm not really sure she is notable... I think that's why you can't find suitable references to establish notability. I'm also a little concerned that a large portion (over a third) of the article is copied word for word from the publisher's biography of her (the 2nd reference). It's only one and a half sentences and its the obvious way to convey that information, so it wouldn't usually be a problem, but the article is just so short that it is quite significant. It seems the biggest challenge for editing workshops is finding suitable topics for people to create articles about (I think a lot of people just edit existing articles, which is much easier). It's particularly difficult for Monmonth since pretty much everything notable in the town already has an article! On 19 May 2012 20:50, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: The first (only?) article created in Monmouth during today's festivities was a biography of the author A V Denham. I've just removed a proposed PROD deletion template from it, but it dos need more references, to establish notability. I've searched on Google and HighBeam, and found nothing suitable, Can anyone provide suitable references, please? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 19 May 2012 22:44, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: As I feared when we discussed this article early today, I'm not really sure she is notable... I think that's why you can't find suitable references to establish notability. I'd be very surprised if an author of at least nine novels, all published by a single mainstream publisher (implying commercial success) with some republished in large print editions, had manage to garner no press coverage, interviews, or reviews. That they have been published over a period starting in 1976 means that such coverage is likely to pre-date the web and may never have been available electronically. I'm also a little concerned that a large portion (over a third) of the article I think you're miscounting. is copied word for word from the publisher's biography of her (the 2nd reference). It's only one and a half sentences and its the obvious way to convey that information, so it wouldn't usually be a problem, but the article is just so short that it is quite significant. SOFIXIT! -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
Worth a trip to the British Library for one of our London based members? Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On May 19, 2012 11:00 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 19 May 2012 22:44, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: As I feared when we discussed this article early today, I'm not really sure she is notable... I think that's why you can't find suitable references to establish notability. I'd be very surprised if an author of at least nine novels, all published by a single mainstream publisher (implying commercial success) with some republished in large print editions, had manage to garner no press coverage, interviews, or reviews. That they have been published over a period starting in 1976 means that such coverage is likely to pre-date the web and may never have been available electronically. I'm also a little concerned that a large portion (over a third) of the article I think you're miscounting. is copied word for word from the publisher's biography of her (the 2nd reference). It's only one and a half sentences and its the obvious way to convey that information, so it wouldn't usually be a problem, but the article is just so short that it is quite significant. SOFIXIT! -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 19 May 2012 22:59, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 19 May 2012 22:44, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: As I feared when we discussed this article early today, I'm not really sure she is notable... I think that's why you can't find suitable references to establish notability. I'd be very surprised if an author of at least nine novels, all published by a single mainstream publisher (implying commercial success) with some republished in large print editions, had manage to garner no press coverage, interviews, or reviews. That they have been published over a period starting in 1976 means that such coverage is likely to pre-date the web and may never have been available electronically. Perhaps. You would need to find multiple reviews (and probably fairly significant reviews) to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. I'm also a little concerned that a large portion (over a third) of the article I think you're miscounting. 22 words out of 61. I'm only counting prose. is copied word for word from the publisher's biography of her (the 2nd reference). It's only one and a half sentences and its the obvious way to convey that information, so it wouldn't usually be a problem, but the article is just so short that it is quite significant. SOFIXIT! I could re-word it, but with only one very short source (plus the book listing), you're always going to be essentially copying the source. I'm sorry to be such a killjoy, but I think the PROD was probably justified... I wish the article were a good one, but I wouldn't really be helping anyone if I were dishonest about my assessment. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham
On 19 May 2012 20:50, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: The first (only?) article created in Monmouth during today's festivities was a biography of the author A V Denham. I've just removed a proposed PROD deletion template from it, but it dos need more references, to establish notability. I've searched on Google and HighBeam, and found nothing suitable, Can anyone provide suitable references, please? I checked JSTOR and my Google Custom Search Engine for reliable sources*. Couldn't find anything. * https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=005788806424018205534:endvnnqf9ku - remember, it not being in here doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it being in here means it's probably notable at least IMHO. ;-) That said, I did purely by chance find an article on the history of Chinese migrants in Butte, Montana. So I expanded the article... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Butte,_Montanadiff=493405693oldid=493234674 -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
