Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thanks for putting the information about my articles that may be deleted on my pages and notifiying me of them, otherwise I wouldn't have known about the messages or that they would have been deleted, I hope they don't get deleted, if they don't, it's thanks to you. Mr. Prez (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to inquire with regards to the tags you attached to this article. Why Harvard and Oxford professor and chair is not notable for an article? And is the Oxford university website not a reliable third party source? Thank you very much. Regards, Grandmaster 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being a professor is not by itself an indication of notability. And the Oxford University, as reliable as it may be, is not a third-party source in this case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned almost in every book that refers to Armenian primary sources, as he translated many of them into English. See for instance references to his translation of Moses of Chorene: [1] Also, whatever is written at Oxford website is confirmed by other sources, for instance:

R. W. Thomson was the Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University and director of Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC.

Ronald Grigor Suny. Transcaucasia, nationalism and social change: essays in the history of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. ISBN 0472096176, 9780472096176, p. 515

What kind of source is required to establish notability of this scholar? Grandmaster 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you simply need to show that he is often quoted as a reference. You've asserted just that above, but your article doesn't quite do justice to that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. How about this one: [2]

Constable's immediate successor (at Dumbarton Oaks) (1984-89) was Robert W. Thomson, Professor of Armenian at Harvard University, an indefatigable editor and translator of decisive Armenian, Syriac, and Greek texts — I count ten and there are probably more — to say nothing of two textbooks on the Armenian language, and much else besides.

Angeliki E. Laiou, Henry Maguire. Byzantium, a World Civilization. Dumbarton Oaks, 1992. ISBN 0884022153, 9780884022152, p. 9

Grandmaster 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to thank you for the help with the Tony Spinner article. Thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my recent problems with listing the AFD for Crash Bash 2, I use twinkle and have only recently started having issues with it. It only happens about 10 percent of the time, but when it does, it appears to list everything correctly but will not create one or more elements of the AFD process. For instance, I have had it not notify the original editor, not create the tag on the entry, or not list it in the daily AFD list. Sometimes all three happen. I have not been able to troubleshoot this issue as it seems to be random. I'm using the latest version of Firefox on Windows 7 Release Candidate. If you have any suggestions, I would certainly appreciate your input. Thanks in advance. Wperdue (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Mr Blanchardb, I do not know why you are so quick to jump to conclusions and try to delete our article. It clearly states that what we have created has become considerably large in the past 5 years, and it confuses me that you are still willing to keep similar pages. Also, I don't know how you have any right to use profanity in your messages...No offense, sir, but none of us should stoop to that level.

Rockhead126 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I used profanity? And if your "creation" has become as large as you claim, surely you can show us a third-party reference that would attest to that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain the "WHY DO PEOPLE MAKE UP STUPID CRAP!" a couple of messages ago? Anyway, we don't do much stuff on the Internet, but we do have a cheap Internet page one of us threw togther. We update it every couple of months. http://peoplesrepublicofantarctica.webs.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockhead126 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me with a diff that I'm the one who wrote that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was from the page creator: "I mistyped when I created the name of the page. The page is about the clinical entity known officially as "Depression of Alzheimer disease." He states right there that it was a typo when he moved the page to "Depression of Alzheimer disease", the correct name. If it was a common typing error or a similar situation that would be one thing, but "Depression" and "Dementia" are pretty far from common accidents that would need a redirect.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it becomes an Author request speedy which should be issued by the page creator himself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is frankly two things (1) Something that a lot of editors arn't going to be aware of (2) more than kinda an irrelevant point when your declining speedy was based on assessment that it is not a typo when the creator himself states that it is a typo. I'll place a note on the editor's page asking him to request deletion, but it's an unecessary step in this situation, imo. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see that. Okay, I did the tagging myself with a {{g7}} template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, it seems you are doing a nice job on New Page patrol. It is rather rare that someone correctly identifies which articles are PROD's, Which one are AFD's and which one are pure CSD's. Thanks to you i even figured out that twinkle can place Prod2 tags, due to an edit conflict on Out of my shoe. Also, based on your edit history it seems that you even correctly retag articles which have been (incorrectly) tagged for CSD. Keep up the great work!

I admit, you made me laugh out loud ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AightMun? also appears to be a problem editor. The IP and username are probably sockpuppets. WP:DUCK--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't realize there were more than one problem editor.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to figure out why I keep getting my entries for the Florida Whig Party and Modern Whig Party of Florida deleted. I am the assistant to the State Director of Communications for the Florida Whig Party. The Modern Whig Party of Florida does not exist. Everything I have added is truthful and verifiable if I was able to get to that point in my posts I could link and cite. Please contact Jason at 352-293-4139, he is the State Director of Communications. Annarogoski (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the fact you have that high a ranking within the party puts you in a conflict of interest. But your edits were reverted because they were blatantly promotional. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being that you have not done any research. I will inform you now. the Florida Whig party was around before the civil war and was very active up until the ratification of Texas. The Florida Whig party of today is a registered party in Florida as of 2007. We are a affiliate charter of the National Modern Whig Party and if we were given the opportunity we could get to the point where we can put up the history and other pertinent info. But You deleting everything as we put it up kind of kills your argument of self promoting. You are not giving us the opportunity to get it done. Out of curiosity. What party are you with that makes you focus on us? Again we are not a state chapter. We are the "Florida Whig Party" but you would have known that if we were given the chance to finish the page. Or just pick up the phone and call like suggested and i can explain it to you. 352-293-4139 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrogoski (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not address in any way the reasons why I reveryed your edits. Your edits were reverted because they were blatantly promotional. Sorry, but the words "Such and such is proud to announce..." do not belong in a Wikipedia article and it, with the rest of the sentence, must be deleted on sight per Wikipedia rules.

You asked, "What party are you with that makes you focus on us?" That has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

And, no, I will not discuss the matter over the phone. Please do not post your phone number or any other contact information other than your Wikipedia username anywhere in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand regarding "such and such is proud to announce..." That could have been deleted or edited to a factual, non-promotional statement, everything else was factual as far as party guidelines. Annarogoski (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest. I happen to know the facts and where to link to the online sources to properly cite the said facts. It is not a promotional gesture by any means. It is meant to be informative and factual since the posts and edits made previously to the Modern Whig Party of Florida were inaccurate. That political party does NOT exist. It is the Florida Whig Party, which has a viable candidate for congress announced for 2010 and more to be released in the upcoming months for other official positions. This is my first time really editing anything on wikipedia, but from what I gathered about the site, it only supports facts, which is what I was trying to do. Florida Whig party is its own entity and a is an affiliate of the national party. Florida ballots say FWP, not MWP (modern whig party). Im trying to get the facts out about the party and its history the same way as other political parties have on Wikipedia. I just looked at the Republican Party entry, its very similar to what I was trying to publish before I kept getting my page reverted to an inaccurate site.Annarogoski (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to show us any reliable sources supporting any of what you stated above (and, by reliable we mean not affiliated with the party in any way), then you are in a conflict of interest, since you already stated that you are a party insider. No two ways about that. Sorry. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resigned my position. I am not affiliated except for my voter registration. I am also white and american so I can not put anything factual and referenced or cited in regards to...lets say the civil war? So I am understanding that "YOU" dont want facts which can be supported, had the information not kept being deleted as I was editing, would have been posted. I would think that a party "insider" as you call it, would be privy to the facts and would know the exact places to find the information to link it.Annarogoski (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whigs of Florida 1845-1854 Author(s): Doherty, Herbert J. ISBN10: 0813000645 ISBN13: 9780813000640 Format: Paperback Pub. Date: 6/1/1959 Publisher(s): Univ Pr of Florida

Comte de Castelnau “Essay on Middle Florida”. The Florida Historical Quarterly, XXVI. (January, 1948)

The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Hardcover) by Michael F. Holt (Author)Hardcover: 1296 pages Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; First Edition edition (June 17, 1999) Language: English ISBN-10: 0195055446 ISBN-13: 978-0195055443 Product Dimensions: 9.7 x 6.5 x 2.2 inches Shipping Weight: 3.3 pounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrogoski (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Crisis of the 1850's (Paperback) by Michael F. Holt (Author)Paperback: 352 pages Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co. (September 17, 1983) Language: English ISBN-10: 039395370X ISBN-13: 978-0393953701 Product Dimensions: 7.5 x 5 x 0.8 inches Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounce

Want to talk about a conflict of interest? Per your user information site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blanchardb, you show a SERIOUS conflict of interest!!!

"I am a casual editor involved in getting people to know about Christianity - that is, the good and the bad. I have some of the main vital articles of Christianity on my watchlist. I am currently seeking to upgrade the article Prayer to GA or FA status. Right now, it looks like I've got that article all to myself, which is a shame, but it allows me to work unimpeded.

I am also involved in the creation and expansion of articles about the geography of the region where I live, that is, Montreal, Canada. In my spare time, I also do graffiti reversion and cleanup, where I tend to specialize in new page patrol.

Outside Wikipedia, I am a single man (and yes, I would like to get married someday). I strive to live by the Word of God, but, like every honest Christian, I am falling short of my goals. Additionally, I have begun work on a novel, some excerpts of which I have posted on a dedicated blog here. (No, I do not intend to start the Wikipedia article on it by myself.)"

Annarogoski (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being a Christian does not create a conflict of interest. If he edited an article on a specific church he was the pastor of, THAT would be a conflict of interest. If his conflict created an issue with regards to his editing that other Wikipedia editors noticed, then there would be a problem. In this case, you have stated above that you are the assistant to the State Director of Communications for the Florida Whig Party, which creates a conflict. I personally believe your conflict has influenced your editing, and that is an issue. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means trying to make a personal attack. I appreciate the professionalism Blanchardb maintained and he has pointed me in the right direction. The whole point I was trying to make that there isnt a COI. I am trying to fix mistakes on the Florida and Modern Whig sites, that can be cited! The purpose of the editing was to put the facts on the page. That was all I wanted to do! Annarogoski (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified your restoration of the Florida Whig Party article. I put up the version immediately preceding the redirect, without the apparant copyvio party platform. It is a state party, so if notability can be proven, it shouldn't redirect to the main party, so I agree with your restoration, just not the execution of it. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Wikipedia COI link [3]I was gracefully sent "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" I appreciate your restoration of the site and I will make sure edits are more carefully done to stay within the wikipedia guidelines.Annarogoski (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to place such a notice on your talk page, and on the Florida Whig Party article talk page, as a good start. In the future, you should avoid copy-pasting any text from ANY source into Wikipedia, unless it is a short quote, referenced properly. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:ORG to better understand our concerns regarding the sourcing of the article.Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Annarogoski (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]