Template:1912 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Raymond Daddazio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Raymond Daddazio. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. ttonyb (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Mel Gussow, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Carolyn Gusoff. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're changing all of the Columbia Journalism and Columbia College links to simply "Columbia University" when your changes are squarely contradicted in almost each case by the biographical material cited at each article. I'm changing them back to comport with the sources, and may begin undoing your changes wholesale if the next few pages reveal, like most I've seen so far, that you're editing contrary to facts. If you know something that is not apparent from the reliable sources, please find a reliable source to support your interpretation and begin including it in support of these edits. Otherwise please stop making them. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stanley A. Rabin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Bio - cited coverage of him specifically is collateral at best and a quick Google search turns up nothing more promising.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Helmut W. Schulz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Bio - cited coverage of him establish facts, but not notability. A quick Google search turns up nothing more promising.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ColumbiaEngineeringLOGO.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did indeed adopt the logo itself from the Columbia website, and added a caption underneath (Columbia University, Columbia engineering). I am not sure when the logo itself is actually created, so I have no idea about free use. I read over the fair use guideline. Is it possible for me to use this logo under non-free but fair use? If not, how should I make the image fair?Zoroastrama100 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this question because the answer is never clear to me. What I'd do if I were in your shoes would be to go to the images of other schools and see what the license terms are for them. I think there's a fair use exemption or allowance here but images I have to say just perplex the heck out of me and so I'd be inclined just to adopt the same thing that seems to work for others. Sorry I can't do more for you there. JohnInDC (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I'll do a little investigating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoroastrama100 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down the images you used to construct this composite image and added an appropriate image summary and fair use rationale for its use on Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science. Please review my changes when you have a chance. Personally, I think it would have been better to just use the plain crossed hammer logo rather than compositing text in with the image since that text already appears next to the logo in the Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science article. —RP88 ^(talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrama100, please do not remove the PUF tag from File:ColumbiaEngineeringLOGO.png until the discussion is closed at PUF - the closing admin will remove the tag Also, for some reason you also remvoed the {{non free logo}} image copyright tag from the image. All non-free images are required to a have both a non-free image copyright tag and a fair use rationale. One or the other, by itself, is insufficient. —RP88 ^(talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left you with a lot of stuff to digest when you next see your Talk page and I realized later that it might be discouraging to see a list of so many things that seem to be wrong, but don't let it get to you. Your edits seem to be essentially sound and intelligent (if a bit subject-area focused); you just need to become a bit more familiar with some of Wikipedia's rules and policies, like notability and sourcing. Also edit summaries, while not required, are *really* helpful. Anyhow please don't become frustrated. You'll figure it out! JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! I will, but I also sent you several messages regarding the notability factors. I think I have them well established. I would welcome any future helps you may have. --Zoroastrama100 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good to see you responding here. Thanks. In short - please, please go have a look at WP:BIO and see what makes someone notable or not. Schultz may be in; Rabin, I think not. (Please excuse the testy tone of my responses on my own Talk page - let's continue the discussion here.) The upshot is that one's position is not really enough to establish notability, not at least mere officers of companies. The subject (typically) needs independent notability, which is established by coverage in third party articles of them (versus mere references). I could go into more detail but for now I just want to get this posted so we can start a dialogue! JohnInDC (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I agree with you in regards to Rabin. Its fine if you delete the article. Sorry if some of my previous actions are somewhat impolite. I am just starting to learn the proper etiquettes of being a wiki editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoroastrama100 (talk • contribs)

To continue. It's not enough that *you* understand what makes someone famous or notable. Wikipedia is, finally, just a repository, a coherent collection, of what others have said about the subjects here. So when you create an article about someone and all that it says is that so-and-so was a professor and a patent holder, the (critical) reader is left with the question of what sets this person apart, what makes them notable - in other words, who besides the article's author seems to think so? Biographies, magazine profiles, newspaper interviews - all those sorts of things with or about the subject help to establish that, in the world at large, they are "notable" enough to have garnered independent, significant coverage. These requirements are particularly important when the subject is a bit obscure to those outside the field. Does this also help? JohnInDC (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And - you're going to be fine. Your stuff is good. It just misses the mark in some places. Take your time, look around - think about reading and / or contributing to articles outside the Columbia sphere. You'll pick up the nuances in no time. And - hey - don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). JohnInDC (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely made the criteria much clearer and more concise compared to the one outlined by wikipedia. I will study further other rules of article creating, and thank you so much for taking the time to explain to me this one facet of editing. I will certainly pay attention to the notability factor in the future. When in doubt, I will ask myself the question, "What drastically sets this person apart, and how recognized is this person in other third-person sources." As of right now, my main interest and knowledge lies in Columbia. I will start looking at other topics to edit and contribute. Thank you again! Zoroastrama100 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have to be drastic or dramatic. Just notable enough that these third parties took notice and took the time to offer up some coverage. TV interviews too. Just - keep reading. Follow links inside Wikipedia to other policies, etc. You'll accrue knowledge. I remember finding this page helpful - WP:NOT. Maybe you will too. Lots of additional linked pages there as well - good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:Notable, if you haven't seen it yet. JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate it.

This is one edit that's mystifying me - you've edited a lot of articles to change the former to the latter when, in nearly every case, the sources make it clear that the subject did in fact graduate from Columbia College within in the university. If you were conforming to the sources, or creating a direct link to bypass a redirect within Wikipedia, I'd understand but when you go in the opposite direction (and away from a standalone page on Columbia College), I am not sure the change is warranted. What's your thinking with those? JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia College is the main undergraduate college of Columbia University. But there are several other colleges with similar name to Columbia College and can be mistaken as such. One great example of that is the name Wheaton College.

Okay, except that the blue Wikilink takes you to the right place if you click it. And if the shorthand is the problem then all you need to do is expand the thing out to "Columbia College of Columbia University" and remove the ambiguity. I don't think you should keep making that change. It isn't generally consistent with the sources and is making the articles less precise. (Likewise the various graduate schools, like "Columbia Law School". Typically, I think, graduate school references are made to the graduate schools.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wanted the articles to be more streamlined. But I'll listen to you, and add the extension instead.

Thanks for uploading File:Mylifeasaquant.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]