User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Betty MacDonald

John. I am the Media Coordinator/researcher for The Friends of Betty MacDonald (www.bettymacdonald.net). In response to your message dated 20 May 2020. “I see that you are active in, and perhaps even an administrator or organizer of, the Betty MacDonald fansites found at (among other locations), bettymacdonald.net. Please see WP:FANSITE for an explanation why such links are not proper; and review WP:COI to see the reasons why you should not be the one adding those links in any case. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC) “ bettymacdonald.net is a NOT FOR PROFIT group. We do not sell nor, do we ask for donations from any of our members. The information that is obtained is obtained through newspaper archives, court recordings and MacDonald family members. Unlike the Betty MacDonald fan club, who sells their "stuff" our information is free and is shared with all at no charge. I added our site in order for the readers of Wikipedia to get a better understaning of this author, her life, and the reality behind the books. I Invite you to visit us at www.bettymacdonald.net or email me at johnc@bettymacdonald.net. John C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnftwa (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. It sounds like you've built something to be proud of. Be that as it may, I am not sure how any of that takes the site out of the fansite category and into the kind of reliable or proper source that the external links policies require. I continue to think that bettymacdonald.net is not an appropriate external link for the articles here. If you still feel strongly about it, you could raise the issue at WP:EAR and see what other editors think - JohnInDC (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne 20th July 2010

Special:Contributions/P.S.B, see: fr:Special:Contributions/P.S.B Hégésippe | ±Θ± 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Stadium

"The House that Yost Built" was coined by the famous Michigan radio broadcaster, Bob Ufer.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. I just found it very difficult to find a reliable source that supported it and figured it was better out (along with that screwball "Carnegie Hall" name) until someone did! Feel free to add it back in if you can find something that supports it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne 28th July 2010

Special:Contributions/PSBone, see: fr:Special:Contributions/PSBone Hégésippe | ±Θ± 28 July 2010

1997 Michigan Wolverines football team

I am contacting you based on your extensive involvment in Michigan Wolverines. I have beefed up 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. It could use some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎. Also, I had trouble finding game details for the Little Brown Jug game. I hope to take this to WP:FAC so if you get a chance this is one of the more important articles that you might be able to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look! Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lederer and related articles

Hello JohninDC, to answer your question I am not Michael Lederer. My name is Amy. I am an American writer living in Berlin. I know other American writers living in Berlin and Lederer is one whose work I follow closely. I came to Berlin after Harvard on a Fulbright scholarship to work with some of the leading theatres in Germany (Volksbühne, Maxim-Gorki, HAU, Sophiensaele). I am now doing a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago. Michael Lederer is one of the subjects I'm considering for my dissertation. I am not in the business of promoting or enhancing his career. I am, however, in the business of chronicling and (in venues other than Wikipedia) analyzing it. I was introduced to his work seeing a performance he gave at the Volksbühne Prater here in Berlin. It was a staged excerpt from, in tandem with a video projection of, the film Las Venice that he co-wrote with Prof. Andrzej Wirth, founder and director of the Angewandtetheaterwissenschaft program in Gießen, the leading university track in multi-media and performance studies here in Germany. I recognized Lederer as a powerful and unique voice in theatre bridging the aesthetics of the US and Europe (Germany in particular). But I do not base my Wikipedia writing about Lederer (or any subject) on my opinion, or on my own observations. I cited ample and specific sources: London's Evening Standard (February 1989). The New York Times (June 1998). Who is Who in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. The French literary review Remanences, volume 16 (May 2001). The National Museum of Poland at Szczcin where his film Las Venice was presented as co-winner of the 2005 Baltic Biennale. His seat on the board of Safe Haven Museum, which he co-founded in Oswego, NY. (Which also led to my fascination with the well documented biography of his father, Ivo Lederer, and his long time partner Kitty Carlisle Hart.) Lederer's novel Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore (Barcelona: Parsifal, 1999 / ISBN 84-8725-98-7 / also translated into Spanish as Ya Nada Dura Eternamente / ISBN 84-8725-99-5) is a book I have read with admiration. Though I did not mention it in the Wikipedia article I drafted, I know that novel was used for two semesters as a text in a course on religious symbolism at William and Mary College in Williamsburg, VA. More recently, Lederer's play Mundo Overloadus appeared at the Poetry Cafe in Covent Garden in London (noted in UK's Poetry Society and The Londonist Book Grocer publications, January 2010), and the same play, more importantly, will be presented next month (http://www.ps122.org/performances/mundo_overloadus.html) at PS122, one of the leading avant-garde theatres in New York City, home to Mabou Mines and more recently the Wooster Group. As noted in The Evening Standard article I cited, as a scholar Lederer's effort to save the ruins of the Rose Theatre in London from destruction by real estate developers led not only to that theatre being spared (it was the first Elizabethan theatre ever unearthed) but it also led directly to a law requiring archeological survey prior to any substantial construction in the UK. That fact alone I consider of more than just a passing interest. In his capacity as an actor, I have seen reviews of some of Lederer's leading performances in papers as the South China Morning Post, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury, et al. They attest, in the case of the California papers, to Lederer's hand in helping to build, as a founding member, TheatreWorks, one of the most widely respected theatres in that state. (if you need to see the reviews I mention I'm certain I can get my hands on them and submit them for your approval). But still it is as a writer that he deserves the greatest attention. I wrote the Wikipedia article because he is doing enough work, of enough importance, in enough places I am confident there are others who will want, and perhaps need, access to information about him. I believe these varied sources I have cited are sufficient to confirm Michael Lederer's eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia under the notability guidlelines for "Creative professionals."

After I saw your proposal to delete these articles I wrote, and changes you made to others, I have reviewed Wikipedia guidelines. Surely you know these better than I do. But what I've seen suggest that if you had doubts re: any particular points, you should have addressed those rather than threatening to delete all. In particular, I have read that to be the subject of an article on Wikipedia a person does not need to be "famous." As a user I believe that's part of Wikipedia's value, to admit a broad public access to a wider base of information than main stream sources alone provide. I often find things here that are not easily accessible elsewhere. The following seems relevant:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.

I notice that you also deleted a contribution I made yesterday to the article about Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's. When I read that book years ago I had the clear impression that the main character was in fact a hooker. Yesterday I read Maureen Dowd make that point in the New York Times. I did not offer my own opinion, and I did not state Maureen Dowd's opinion as fact. I simply inserted as fact, for all to consider, that "In an op-ed piece in the New York Times 31 July 2010, Maureen Dowd states that "though many of us grew up not knowing it, Holly's a hooker." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01dowd.html?hp )

You called that idea "irrelevant." It's a pity. I identified it as an opinion, as stated by one widely respected writer, in a widely respected paper, and I put it in there because I had the feeling that anyone weighing the significance of Capote's book might benefit from considering the possibility.

I read another Wikipedia guideline today that states:

Please do not bite the newcomers

Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of regular editors, but also through numerous anonymous contributions made by newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once, and in some ways (such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope) even the most experienced among us are still newcomers. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.

I am reluctant to contribute again to Wikipedia. I will reinstate now some of what I had written with great care. I will also insert all I have written here on the relevant talk pages. And if you still feel the need to delete what I've written, then I suppose there is nothing I can do to stop you from doing that. I respect what you are trying to do, to keep Wikipedia relevant, but if I can't identify a powerful new voice in theatre, and I can't comment on an existing voice (Capote's) I don't know how I can contribute. (I would like to sign this, but I confess I don't know how to make the four tildes on my computer to do so. I know that the system will sign for me automatically. - Amy (aka Soupy123456789) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take my comments - or the proposed deletions - personally. (And, please consider too whether it's really fair to characterize my routine commentary and edits as "hostile".) You've obviously done a good bit of work on these various articles, but to my eye they all simply fail to meet the basic requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, most particularly that of notability. Take a look for example at WP:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. The person should have been "the subject of of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Further, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The items you supplied for Michael Lederer didn't meet these tests - the NYT article was about his father, the London paper quoted him in passing in an article about something else altogether, and The Land website doesn't appear to be an independent source. I looked for other coverage about him and found none. In short, whatever his talents or accomplishments, he just hasn't been the subject of the kind of coverage that raises him to notability in the Wikipedia sense. (The "creative professional" criteria aren't any looser - just a bit more specifically described. The gist remains, "already well-known or widely cited in their field of endeavor".) Lederer wrote a book, he wrote a play, he wrote and acted in a film that won an award of indeterminate import in Poland. Those are not small achievements yet none of this seems to have translated into the kind of independent coverage that bestows Wikipedia "notability" upon him. (Similar requirements apply to the book and to the play, and though I tried, I couldn't find really any 3d party coverage of them at all.)
I appreciate that we were all new once but newness doesn't mean that anything goes. If you are going to contribute to the encyclopedia (and I really do encourage it), you need to become familiar, *before* you invest a lot of time and energy, with the basic policies and guidelines that shape the endeavor, such as WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:No original research. As to these particular articles - you have removed the proposed deletion templates, and the rule is that I can't reinstate them once you've done that, so I will likely move to the more elaborate procedure of nominating them for deletion. There, people debate the matter until there is a consensus reached about whether the articles should be deleted or not. I will be sure to let you know when that happens, and will help to make sure you understand how to include your views in the discussion. If it turns out I'm wrong - well, then the articles stay; and no hard feelings if they do. (PS - the tildes are typically above the accent grave on the upper LH side of your keyboard. I don't know if European keyboards are different. Also there should be a little icon above the text entry box that will add the tildes if you click it.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Defending not only my articles, but myself as writer, from what has devolved into an attack

Collapsing duplicate comments - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Lederer and Talk:Soupy123456789 for the active threads

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP A NEWCOMER: I'm sorry, but you are using language that sounds reasoned, at the same time as you are not only claiming, but doing, things that are not reasonable. For instance, today you took it on yourself to make such radical edits to the article about Lederer, that it now reads "Lederer co-founded of [sic] Safe Haven museum." And as you've rewritten it, you now have it say that Ivo Lederer was Michael Lederer's grandfather, not father. You are acting swiftly, and with a passion, even vehemence, that I cannot understand. You may have a great deal more experience at Wikipedia than I have, but unless I missunderstand the systerm that does not make you a Wikigod. It is you who proposed this article for deletion, which is fair enough. But you are not waiting for the process to unfold, so that others, not you, not me, can judge it for themselve,s objectively on its merits. What is the point of submitting it for arbitration if you are taking the chain saw to it before the powers-that-be weigh in? I ask you also, Wikipedia guidelines state "Please do not bite the newcomer." But you are biting indeed, and rather savagely. We have exchanged comments for nearly a week, and I believed that the article would stand until an objective review. Could you not wait for the arbitration that you yourself requested? In your rush to judgement, you are deleting and rewriting whole portions, and you are making many mistakes. By not conducting our back and forth on the discussion page, but by taking it live (and with that chainsaw) to the article itself, you do not allow me the polite chance to respond thoughtfully, and carefully. As I write this, for example, I am in transit responding from an airport lounge. The discussion page would allow this back and forth without such urgency. I will provide reliable documentary evidence to support every single word I have written, but I literally cannot do it "on the fly" like this. As well as making errors in both grammar and facts as noted above, here are just two of other examples of the missclaims you have made. You write that: "I [JohninDC] removed, as implausible, the claim that he [Lederer] was an original member of of TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley), which was founded in 1970, when Lederer was 14." That is a polite way of calling it a lie, or at the least a mistake, on my part. The very first production by TheatreWorks in 1970 was Brecht's The Trial of Lucullus. Michael Lederer played Lucullus. TheatreWorks began that year as a youth workshop, then swiftly grew over the years into one of the most successful theatres in California. Again, this catches me in an airport lounge and I can't submit documents from here, but I can easily document ThearteWorks' leading position, and Lederer's leading role there over the years, once I get back to my home office. But however awkwardly, from this airport, just to prove how far TheatreWorks came from that earliest day with Lederer on its houthful stage, and through his many leading adult roles throughout the 80s as that theatre grew, here is a YouTube video of this year's Tony Award ceremony with the winner for Best Musical thanking TheatreWorks directly, since it is where the show Memphis began: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1452266302571&ref=share . Long after his role, as described, as "an origianl member of TheatreWorks", Lederer went on to play Cyrano in Cyrano de Bergerac there in 1983, and so many other leading roles - but now to find any mention of those others will have to look at an earlier version of the article, because rather than wait for supporting evidence (see my note above), you just took it on yourself to cut out mention of them. You also state, with a full voice, that you removed from the article about Lederer any reference to the 2001 film Haven, "finding no mention of it." This is another example of why, JohninDC, you should let others cross-check facts in the article rather than taking it on yourself to single handedly decide what should stay in (nothing, according to you) and what should be jettisoned (everything, according to you, starting now and not later after some inconcenient review): Here are several reliable, documented, indisputable references to the fact that the 2001 film Haven indeed chronicles the story of a band of 982 Jewish refugees that included Michael Lederer's father and grandparents, and the fact that that same film told the story of the only such group of Jews admitted into the US from Europe during WW II. Michael Lederer later co-founded the Safe Haven museum and helps guide it as a member of their board, and it is not for you, but for an objective review to decide whether that is to be considered "notable." Here are just a few citations to dispute your claim that the film Haven is not to be found, and / or has nothing to do with the museum Lederer co-founded: Here is the New York Times obituary for Michael Lederer's father, confirming that he was a member of that small group of refugees intgerred at Oswego: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/25/world/ivo-john-lederer-a-scholar-of-eastern-europe-is-dead-at-68.html Please read the article, JohninDC, and see the mention of Michael Lederer as writer and editor. You might believe such a mention in such a context is not notable, but why not leave it to others at Wikipedia to decide that for themselves? Here is the website for the museum:http://www.oswegohaven.org/ (Go ahead and click on the Voices link on that site, and listen to the interview with Lederer's father, that might interest you since you seem so intrigued by the subject.) Here is the Wikipedia article for Ruth Gruber, the woman who led those refugees from Europe to Oswego, and who is the basis for the main character in the film Haven, played by Natasha Richardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Gruber (I had no hand in writing this article, so please, JohninDC, don't brutalize it. That fine woman deserves every word written by others. Here is a Charlie Rose interview with Ruth Gruber about the film Haven:http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3262 Here is the Amazon.com description of the DVD of the film Haven that they sell: Here is the IMDB site describing the movie, and the fact that it is about the story told by Safe Haven museum: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250862/ And finally (my flight will board soon, and this is all I can manage from here) here is the Barnes and Noble site where the film is sold, with an accompanying description of the film (just click here and read it for yourself, lest you might believe I'm inventing the description): http://video.barnesandnoble.com/DVD/Haven/Natasha-Richardson/e/786936301267 The Barnes & Noble description (please read it yourself on their website, I won't ask you to take one word I say as worthy): "Editorial Reviews An American journalist takes on the dangerous responsibility of rescuing nearly a thousand refugees from a Nazi concentration camp in this two-part made-for-TV movie based on a true story. In the early days of America's involvement in World War II, Ruth Gruber (Natasha Richardson) is a reporter who has been giving particular attention to a recent story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in violation of United States policies of the day, has announced he will grant asylum in America to 982 European refugees from Nazi labor camps. But someone needs to escort the prisoners to the U.S.; Gruber, of European ancestry and Jewish faith, volunteers for the assignment over the objections of her parents (Anne Bancroft and Martin Landau). Gruber travels to Italy on behalf of Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (Hal Holbrook), where she helps the refugees board the U.S.S. Henry Gibbins. But Gruber discovers that the American sailors manning the ship regard their passengers as little better than their Nazi jailers, and the State Department declares, upon their arrival in the United States, that all the refugees are to be housed in a camp in Oswego, NY -- even those who have families willing to sponsor them in America. Gruber realizes her work with the refugees is far from done, and she bravely battles against both bureaucracy and prejudice to win both dignity and fair treatment for the new settlers. Haven was originally broadcast on the CBS television network on February 11 and 14, 2001. Mark Deming, All Movie Guide" If experience instructs me, I think it is more likely that you will now question how or why I provide the above proofs, rather than admit that you made a mistake in writing that you "could find no mention" of this film. There are many other sources to be found that you have missed. I will also add, as soon as I can, other details of Lederer's biography. The discussion page is the place for such Q&A, and not after-the-fact arguments when serious edits have already been made in haste. I will be be willing and (now) happy to seek and provide ample evidence of Lederer's connection to Haven / Safe Haven museum, but I simply cannot do it now from this airport lounge. It is not fair of you to force me do this, by taking it off the more polite venue of the discussion page. This began as a civil exchange, but on your side this is really not a discussion now, it is an attack. This newcomer wants to ask whoever reads this: is Wikipedia a one man operation, and that man's name is JohninDC ?? In the next day or so I will reinstate parts of this and other articles that you have cut away, and offer what evidence I can while traveling as I am. In the meantime, why don't you please wait and let the process that you yourself intitiated unfold? Let others decide. You accuse me of "personal assessments" and - what did you write (I'm too blearly eyed to find it now) something about "bloviating" or something along those lines? You have made rash judgements, executed swift cuts carelessly, and without due regard for the process. Your own personal assessments you take to be fact. My next step, other than to do as I write above, will be to make an appeal to wiser Wikipedians than I (or you) regarding a process I see as far from reasoned. - Soupy123456789, 8 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Undoing edits (Wolverine)

I have more refs. You want to revert my edits cause of some perverted sense of relaible sources or whatever? Whatever. InternetHero (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that support the edit you'd like to make, then by all means, include them. Don't, however, simply reintroduce the original flawed edit. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article re: Michael Lederer

You removed mention of Kitty Carlisle Hart from the article on Ivo Lederer, and removed mention of Ivo Lederer in her article. Now you claim she is so close "a family friend" that her published recommendtation for Michael Lederer's book is "puffery." Which is it? Is there are a personal connection worth noting in article sections devoted to personal lives? Also, if a person of her repute publishes a recommendation for a book, who are you to decide it is not valid? And does not belong in any mention of the book? You asked for verifiable support for this book's notability, but seem to me more inclined to a campaign to delete than to allow others to judge the merits. - Soupy123456789, 10 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dust cover copy, by definition written to sell copies of the book, does not confer notability. It's neither independent nor reliable. This is particularly the case when the person contributing the blurb was a close family friend. I'll leave it in, for now, because experienced editors will recognize it for the puffery that it is.
Also. If you are going to accuse people of vandalism, you should first read WP:Vandalism to gain a better understanding of what "vandalism" is - and is not. JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good day

Hello, you do not know me, but I was hoping you may be able to help. I noticed that you have nominated an article for deletion on the afd page. I have never done such a thing before, but have attempted it. Unfortunately, my edits resulted only in a mess. If you could provide any assistance whatsoever, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Spoke shook (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I always follow the directions at WP:AFD, being careful to copy over all the brackets, etc. from the templates they provide. There's no trick to it that I've found other than to make sure you don't accidentally erase critical template characters! Liberal use of "show preview" is also recommended. I would be happy to help more but to be honest I've only ever followed those instructions and have no real insight into the process otherwise! JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks. It looks like some other editor corrected my mistakes! Spoke shook (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

God bless other editors, hah! Glad it worked out. JohnInDC (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne 13th August 2010

Special:Contributions/Christophe Themaster, see: fr:Special:Contributions/Christophe Themaster. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne 16th September 2010

Special:Contributions/Tæki.ɒn, see: fr:Special:Contributions/Tæki.ɒn. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

John Prendergast

It is a singular account.

No, I am not affiliated with him, but to gather information for bio, seems I would need to contact him. Nell 12:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Shannon

I see that you deleted the reference to Lisa's essay in The Enough Moment. Why is that not allowed.

Below are items I was going to include. I would appreciate your review to see if any are acceptable.

Broadcast: http://www.kboo.org/node/20667 KBOO A Deeper Look http://www.nhpr.org/node/31891 New Hampshire Public Radio Word of Mouth http://www.king5.com/new-day-northwest/Lisashannonathousandsisters-90407159.html Lisa Shannon on King 5 http://jackseattle.radio.com/2010/04/13/a-heavy-but-hopeful-read/ Community Matters Interview http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=112&cmsid=90 The Dave Ross Show http://conversationslive.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=29 Conversations with Vicki St. Clair http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2010/04/15/segments/153446 The Leonard Lopate Show


WGN TV http://www.wgntv.com/news/middaynews/wgntv-author-lisa-shannon-a-thousand-sisters,0,4189054.story


Radio interview on The Nicole Sandler Show

http://www.radioornot.com/

Interview on GRIT TV w/ Laura Flanders

http://www.grittv.org/2010/04/28/lisa-shannon-a-thousand-sisters/


Online: Booklist Blog Mention

http://blog.booklistonline.com/2010/04/19/minority-report-sisters-cross-paths-in-congo/ Time Magazine Interview Online – 4/12/2010 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978260,00.html

Failure Magazine Interview

http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/lisa_shannon_a_thousand_sisters/P4/

Lisa Shannon interviewed at Tonic.org

http://www.tonic.com/article/a-thousand-sisters-lisa-shannon-run-for-congo/


PRINT:

Kirkus Review http://www.kirkusreviews.com/static/pdf/spring.pdf

The Oregonian Review http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2010/04/nonfiction_review_a_thousand_s.html

January 15, 2010 Library Journal http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6713695.html?industryid=47110

2/22/2010 Publishers Weekly http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6713695.html?industryid=47110

Winnipeg Free Press http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/entertainment/books/powerful-meditation-on-helping-a-thousand-sisters-90459809.html

World Pulse Media http://www.worldpulse.com/magazine/arts/books/a-thousand-sisters-my-journey-into-the-worst-place-on-earth-to-be-a-woman

Foreword Magazine - April 2010

Runner’s World Mention - May 2010

Lisa Shannon in The Globe and Mail 5/17/2010 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/sarah-hampson/what-congo-taught-lisa-shannon/article1571247/


Thank you. Nell 12:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I took it out because it was not a book but just an essay she appeared to contribute; I suppose it could as easily go back in. As to all these other sources - what, if anything, do they allow you to add to her biography other than the fact that she has been profiled / discussed in all these publications? As has been pointed out, these articles aren't intended as curricula vitae but as sources of information about the subjects, and they shouldn't be cluttered with links that don't add anything except to make the subject seem "more important". JohnInDC (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the TIME interview, for instance, would give readers more information about Lisa and her work. My intent isn't to show "how important" a person is, but how important their work is.

Nell 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Same thing. If a reliable source says "her work is important", then say her work has been "described as important" (or whatever) and then link to the article. The importance of her work can't, shouldn't, be established inferentially by linking to a ton of cites to big-name magazines and publications. JohnInDC (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

More on John Prendergast

Are you agreeing with Theinterior?

Can I salvage from anything from the article?

Thank you. Nell 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Theinterior that the article had (and continues to have) way too many links and stuff that doesn't really go to the point of there being an article. It's too - promotional, too much about how others have assessed Prendergrast. Number of profiles, honorary degrees, lists of universities that have had him as a visiting professor; little or none of that adds anything to the who / how / what / why of him and his work. The article, really, could be just a few sentences long: Prendergrast founded these organizations, which do X, he's written these books, which say Y, and he travels around the country and makes promotional appearances to these ends. The rest seems, by and large, to be present primarily to further publicize the work of his organizations - which is not the point of this encyclopedia. I don't think the word "salvage" is the right one in this case - there is already plenty there about who he is and what he does, indeed too much still. I can appreciate how it must be frustrating to collect all this material, laboriously enter it, and have it removed - but really a lot of it is overkill! JohnInDC (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely don't work for the Enough Project, however, do have permission to use the photos. As I recall, in a hurry, sorry, 3 are from Enough's flickr' page. Will check later. Nell 15:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I don't know much about photo permissions - it always confuses me - but you may want to or need to clarify that somehow. Having Enough's permission is not the same as taking a photo yourself, and you may have to document or otherwise get Enough to release the photos. Or not. I am not sure - just watch out for that. JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The photo will Elie Wiesel is important, I feel, because of John's association with him.

Is the piece, as you have now altered it, acceptable, or do I have to edit it further? Sorry, no time to read it thoroughly at the moment.

I have provided permission from the photographer of the one remaining photo.

Thank you. Nell 16:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I worry a bit that the Elie Wiesel photo is just another example of elevation by association. But I don't feel that strongly about it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't answer you question about the article. I think it needs more work, particularly to move the text away from the Enough Project from which it was lifted, but it is better now and close to losing the 'resume' tag. You don't need to do anything in particular to it - I'll be playing with it some more, I think, and other editors may take part too. JohnInDC (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted entries.

If my entries on wolverines deserve to be deleted, then so does 90% of the crap in the discussion section for being completely unsupported. Information on range, even if unconfirmed, would seem to be valuable. After all, there is an undeleted section on wolverines in Iowa, where they have never been known.

No wonder people have problems with Wikipedia being considered a normative source.Uniquerman (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The problems with your Oregon anecdote were that 1) it didn't seem to have a point; 2) it was just - an anecdote, nothing the least bit includeable under Wikipedia's policies; and 3) had been removed once before for reasons (1) and (2). After you added the thing about changing the range map (an entry which I didn't delete, BTW), I saw that you might have been going somewhere with it. I thought about going back and reinstating everything but then when I saw that every single one of your contributions to Wikipedia appears to consist of stray comments on article talk pages, I decided that there wasn't much point to it. It's just your personal thinking on the subject and why put it back in if that's all it's going to be.
I guess my larger point is, if you think you have something to contribute to the encyclopedia - a correction, an elaboration, a revision - then you should just go ahead and make the edit yourself (having of course determined that the edit is consistent with the sourcing policies of reliability and verifiability), rather than telling prior editors that they've gotten it wrong somehow. If you want people to credit your opinions and observations, you should take the trouble from time to time to implement them - with the attendant risk, of course, that someone may turn around and argue that you've gotten it wrong too.
I don't say this facetiously, by the way; I mean it. You seem to be well informed, and once you gained a basic understanding of what qualifies information for inclusion, you could probably improve the encyclopedia if you'd just try. JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If you do not understand the historic significance of a wolverine sighting in the Rogue River watershed, perhaps you should refrain from commenting. I wasn't merely reciting an anecdote: oh, I know a friend who saw a wolverine. This part of Oregon has never, as far as is known, part of the historic range of the wolverine, according to the Atlas of Oregon and other sources. If it can be confirmed that wolverine are resident there, it means that they are expanding their territory beyond the known historic range. This is more momentous than a confirmed jaguar sighting in Texas, which is part of their historic range, and I have advised my friend to make a report to the federal and state game authorities so that they can investigate. I included the section so that others who might be interested could possibly pursue the matter.Uniquerman (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I will readily concede that I don't know much about the possible historic significance of such a sighting. What I do know is that, however important it may or may not be, "a friend told me this" (which, however you want to characterize it, is precisely what you said) is neither "reliable" nor "verifiable" within the Wikipedia meaning of those terms, and for that reason counts for no more than chit-chat and speculation. Again, you appear to have the knowledge and sophistication to improve the encyclopedia, rather than simply throwing out the occasional aside in the hopes that others might act upon them. I think you should try. (And, until you do, I think you should temper your criticisms of those of us who do actually edit.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
All wildlife sightings are anecdotal until verified. If I understand you correctly, if I had said that I saw a wolverine in the Rogue River watershed, it would be neither reliable nor verifiable. Yet this is how all wildlife conjectures start. And this, I contend, is the problem with Wikipedia. All other encyclopedic guides would refer the information, if possible, to an expert witness who would, not verify, but contend one way or the other that it would be verifiable, and consider it for future reference. The rules governing contributions to Wikipedia may be clear-cut, but the rules governing deletions are not so, since obvious fantasy, such as the contention that wolverines exist in Iowa, a plains state that could not possibly be wolverine habitat, are allowed to stand.Uniquerman (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
When verified, a sighting may be included in the article. When a report of a sighting is repeated by a reliable source, then it can be included as a reported sighting. You are not a reliable source and neither is your friend. If he did eventually gain the interest of a state or federal wildlife authority, which in turn reported the sighting (as verified or simply as "reported") then it could be included here. Until then the fact is nothing. You make an interesting point re the Iowa note, and I agree. That note is no more enlightening or supported as yours, yet it stands. But I don't lose too much sleep over the disparate treatment because, well, this is just a Talk page, not the article proper, and different editors do things for different reasons. I would have been much more inclined to leave yours in, even come to your defense, if it had appeared to be a kind of poorly-considered departure from the form of an otherwise productive editor, rather than emblematic of your approach to the encyclopedia. Editors will not take you seriously until you take Wikipedia seriously. Drive-by commentary, tossed-off remarks and suggestions for inclusion that fail even the most basic guidelines for the encyclopedia aren't going to do it. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record (does that phrase even convey meaning nowadays?), I again suggest that you take up editing in earnest. You will meet with much less of this sort of frustration, I'm sure. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And again, I say to you that Wikipedia will not be taken seriously by a great number of intelligent folk until it develops some rigor and consistency in its practices. You edit this way. He edits that way. It has both the virtues and vices of anarchy: libertarian principles and autocratic practices. Referring to the rulebook is, by your own admission, at the discretion of the editor. This drives away serious contributors, because they see their remarks brushed off when equally uncitied, unverified comments are left in. Of course, the charge of hypocrisy is never a very strong one, nor is it now.

Maybe I will take you up on your suggestion. The way I have to conduct my affairs at this time does not lend itself to it, unfortunately. Later, dude.Uniquerman (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

YOUR EDITS on John Prendergast

This is directed to both you and to Theinterior.

You left behind punctuation, grammatical and other errors in your edits, including incomplete citings, omitted references, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)

That is a sometimes consequence of making large-scale revisions to an article. Thanks for fixing them. Otherwise, please refrain from reintroducing references and other material that I've taken out, unless you discuss it first on the Talk page. The article is still not that good, still over-referenced, and if anything needs to be streamlined further. JohnInDC (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, I doubt that TheInterior follows my Talk page. If you have something to say to him you should probably say it directly. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with this change:

which is intended to raise awareness of violence against women and girls

I think needs alternatives to reusing varieties of partnering and creating.

Initially, wiki editors insisted upon everything being supported, which is why I attempted to do so.

I agree that it is unfinished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.177.202 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, "everything" is a bit broad. Have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources to gain a sense of the level of detail to which factual citations are required. Too many can really wreck the flow of an article. As for the edit, I think "which is intended" is helpful, but it can come out I suppose. I don't know what you mean by "I think needs alternatives to reusing varieties of partnering and creating." Are you referring to word choice? JohnInDC (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thank you very much for all of your work!

Best, Nell Nell 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits on Universities

I just invited User:Abc1def to discuss his changes (Gourman report and "decline") in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. --Anneyh (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've just also learned that the Gourman Report was last published in 1997. The information is stale and shouldn't be added to current articles. JohnInDC (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gourman report is a traditional work to produce rankings over the decades. Although it was last publsihed in 1997, it still maintains its say based on the independenct source of assessment. Despite the criticsms, the report has strengths to balance the rated universities for educationall purpose, and conveys its orthodox implications amidst many global ranking schemes. It stands, and better save as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc1def (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are going to have to come up with a better (and sourced) rationale for a 13 year old source, subject to criticism for its opaqueness, than to say it has unspecified "strengths" that counter the orthodoxy. JohnInDC (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
John. I think that the main role of encyclopedia shed the light on what exists as is. Despite the heavy criticisms, other ranking sources are cited into inclusion of many articles. The criticisms reflect the concerns on the other aspect, and the Gourman report has endured over the decades. It is the first work ever on the globe to rate the American and international universities. For the Wikipedia stands as a best comrehensive and exhaustive authority, is it proper to omit such significance the Gourman rankings entails? Is it acceptable that only the survey based ranking sources flourish blocking other side of voices? I think that the Gourman report can encourage many universites to boost their way ahead. No ranking sources deny its manifestations because each ranking scheme has its own particular factors for assessement. It lives based on the independent elements of assessment motwithstanding the publication date, and is quite balanced over the regional consideration. It could even be permanent blessing equally across the globe. After all, the fact is better not excluded from the encyclopedia. The Gourman ranking is a fact subject only to the readers' value assessment. Do not meddle in any more. If it is ousted, is the Wikipedia an encyclopedia?Abc1def (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc1def (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The Gourman Report doesn't shed any light on what "is", but instead on what *was*, now fully 13 years ago. Whatever debatable value these rankings may have once had, they are now obsolete and have no place in current articles. If they have any value today, it would be to provide a snapshot of the way in which various schools were (mysteriously, inexplicably) ranked during the late 1990s; and it's entirely unclear to me how such a tangential discussion would merit inclusion in any of these articles. Please do not reinsert it. You will likely find yourself blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Then why does the encyclopedia deal with the historic items, such as Bill of rights, or French decalration of human rights. Such items merit as they were at one times. That alone justifies the inclusion of Gourman report while we step back from the current meanings of that report. I even believe that the report carries its own manifestations based on its own elements of assessment. The outcome of report has not been negated on its face by any other ranking sources, but is just left for the current and future. As I notice, you seem to have any bias from the report. But it is a notorious and decades long college materials while we feel the encyclopedia should well chart it. I do not think you have any authority to exhume it depriving of the readers's chance.Abc1def (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're being facetious in comparing the Gourman Report to those documents, but in case you're not, I'd say that the Bill of Rights or the French Declaration of Human Rights continue to have a major impact on the formation and nature of government and political systems today. When you find reliable sources to demonstrate that college and graduate school administrators are today trying to improve their ranking in the next Gourman Report (whenever it might be published), then you'll persuade me. Otherwise it's little more than a random piece of data taken from a different time. JohnInDC (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Spammy link

Hi JohnInDC, I would like to apologize for adding the washington.org link on Washington, DC's article the other day, I didn't realize that it looked kind of spammy. The reason why I added that link was because it was Washington, DC related. I was there in between August 17-August 19, 2010 and took lots of photos. I had also posted some photos on one of the wiki pages such as the Washington Monument, Washington, DC, Lincoln Memorial and others to name a few. I had posted a photo of the Washington Monmument on the Washington, DC although it got removed because it was already presented on that page. If you don't mind, I do have links of the photos that I took while I was in Washington, DC that I had uploaded on wikipedia and for some of them, I don't know which article to post them on since some of them got removed off of one of the articles.

I'm from Sudbury, Ontario, Canada and I enjoyed my stay in DC and may return one day! Take care. Webfan29 (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

List of Cranbrook alumni

Hi. Thanks for helping to improve the list. I was trying to get rid of the red links but WP:ECITE trumps cosmetics. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

ALO

The present account — not blocked — on wp-FR is fr:Spécial:Contributions/Mister Gaga. See Special:Contributions/Mister Gaga (username choosen probably because the contributor, who owns an art gallery in Paris, has organized an exhibition about Lady Gaga, which started a few days ago). Maybe he uses other accounts during the same time, but Robotpotato doesn't seem significant enough. Did you ask for CU on wp-EN? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC) + 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not yet but I expect to. This one is a bit different. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JohnInDC. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 05:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why do you edit our entry?

If our academic ranking is of "dubious utility" you should delete the whole paragraph about rankings. We are a research group belonging to the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), the largest public research body in Spain, who are you? in which academic or scientific grounds are you claiming that our ranking is of no utility? QS ranking is clearly biased for CommonWealth countries, THE ranking has serious problems, and so on. No university ranking is perfect but you are none to claim ours is no valid. I am reediting the entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.78.102 (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The ranking system appears to be based on the "web presence" of various universities rather than on academic standards, student body or faculty composition, curriculum, or anything else that makes a university "good" or "bad". This was explained to you here and you were asked to stop re-inserting the link. I'm asking you again. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: STX (video game)

Hello JohnInDC, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of STX (video game), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Video games are not included in A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 12:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Anderson

You flagged this page for {{speedy}} deletion as an article re-created after an AfD discussion. The article you have seen is about a racing driver; the Jordan Anderson article which was previously deleted was about a musician of the same name. We appreciate your work here, but it is important not to assume that an article having the same name as a deleted article is indeed the same article. As it happens this article merits {{speedy}} deletion as being non-notable, so the end result is the same. But deletion for the wrong reason not infrequently leads to appeals to WP:DRV and extra involvement for the admins. Happy wikying. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There was an AfD for the NASCAR driver as well, which is the AfD to which the speedy delete template was linked - I'm not sure how you wound up at the musician AfD. I've also responded at your Talk page. Thanks for deleting the article in any case. JohnInDC (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnInDC/Archive_4&oldid=1033904455"