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.

Greetings,

I came across this document which refers to a lawsuit against the DHS. In one paragraph, it contains the following text:

Further, during his investigation, petitioner was contacted by an individual going by the name Blanchardb who is located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (See Plaintiff's Exhibits A & B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.) Said Blanchardb shut plaintiff out of all of the several programs of the Foundation, ending petitioner's ability to further investigate the Foundation.

Do you happen to know the username or IP address of the person you blocked? From the information in this lawsuit, I appears your decision was correct, btw. :) -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found it -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted in a newsgroup. In the US, an attorney can get disbarred just for accepting a case like this. Furthermore, given the plaintiff's history, it is likely that he'll be forced to pay Wikipedia's legal bills in advance or else the courts will just refuse to hear the case. I wouldn't worry about it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No lawyer was involved and the case was dismissed. I doubt that Wikimedia had any expenses in this case and I do not know if DHS is going to send a bill to him. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do. This time I disagree, but we will see what happens. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to make a page for OriginOil but no matter what I put, the page gets tagged for deletion. I don't get it, since here are a few examples of company pages that exist on Wikipedia, which read to me no less or no more like promotional pieces as you say my OriginOil page does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire_Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PetroSun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe%27s_Stone_Crab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baskin_Robbins

What is it about these pages that make them okay for wikipedia, but other company pages (namely the one I'm trying to create) that break the rules? Do you need news citations about OriginOil? There are plenty. I thought you wanted impartial references; impartial means to me that OriginOil would not be mentioned but related technology would be.

Thanks in advance for clarifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8factory (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "impartial references" you added are not about OriginOil at all. They are about the problems that led to the creation of OriginOil. There's a world of difference. What we need is for you to show that OriginOil meets our notability guidelines, and that means more than merely showing that the company attempts to be a solution to a major problem. That means, in your case, showing that your company is already recognized by independent reliable sources as being a solution to the problem it intends to fight.

Notability, not mere existence, is the make-or-break inclusion criterion for all topics, and notability, by definition, cannot be self-proclaimed. You can't just say, here's a notable problem, and we're the solution. When you do that, you must show that the solution itself is notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we mean by "independent reliable sources" is this: the sources must be about OriginOil, must be more than mere mentions (non-trivial), must be written by people unrelated to the company (independent), and must be reliable. That means blogs and press releases are out. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example would be this, which is used in the Microsoft article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however I did not link to press releases. I linked to these pages:

http://www.originoil.com/news.html (see right side of page, "OriginOil in the News"

and http://www.originoil.com/multimedia.html (see left side of page, which includes CNN, ABC, etc.)

So why was my contribution deleted?

Thanks.

Cre8factory (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted. It's still there, at least, as I am writing this reply. As for your references, the URL alone says unacceptable to establish notability: you're linking to the company's own website. You should link, instead, directly to the news sources themselves. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me a lot if you didn't have a signature that I can only see which to reply to by hovering over them and squinting. My mother always said I would go blind.

I've left you a TB on my talk page, anyway. Nothing viscious, but seems to me you PROD almost anything that doesn't get tr'd in a few days and then you want to keep this? Not sure why. PNT is not AfD anyway, so not sure how to proceed now.

I do appreciate your hard work old bean, just not sure what you're getting at now. Odd for you to leave a message on my page instead of simply ignore me, so I imagine I missed something.

Best wishes and keep up the hard work Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdconnolly (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the right place to put this. I'm writing hoping you might reconsider your deletion of James Baar's bio.

Note: James Baar is a prolific published author. With regard to references (I thought the rule was you only needed one), his biography includes 7 books with their ISBN numbers. The deleted page also included a link to an article referencing him in the Providence Journal.

Also note: "But Wait there's More" [1]

Lastly, note the page reference in Who’s Who and extensive references in O’Dwyer’s Directories.

I hope you reconsider.

Brian Connolly bconnolly@furthermore.com Bdconnolly (talk)

For the time being, I cannot reconsider. No evidence has been given that Baar meets our inclusion guidelines. And the arguments you gave are simply insufficient, most of them are in fact irrelevant. Just because a book has an ISBN number doesn't mean the book is notable: it merely means it exists. So that cannot be taken in consideration unless you can show that a criticism of his books has itself been published by a reliable third-party source.

O'Dwyer's Directories will include anyone willing to pay a fee. That alone disqualifies it as a reliable source to establish notability.

As for Marquis Who's Who, their inclusion guidelines are not the same as ours. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, isn't the Providence Journal a reliable source [2]? How 'bout Media Bistro [3]?

Bdconnolly (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Providence Journal is a reliable source, but it appears to be the only one. Mediabistro.com is a blog. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought technically, one only needed one reliable source. Also, certainly someone reliably characterized as a "Golden-age power player" deserves inclusion.

Bdconnolly (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, the "one source" policy is that if a biographical article about a living person has at least one relevant source, reliable or not, the BLP PROD deletion process cannot be used. And that's not the deletion process that was used here. The process that was used was Articles for Deletion discussions, where a consensus is sought among Wikipedia editors as to whether the inclusion guidelines are met.

Our main notability guideline calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please pay a special attention at the clarification on the term "sources": The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. If only one person calls the subject a "Golden-age power player," and no one else picks up on the appellation, then this is insufficient to establish notability, regardless of who that person is. We don't want people to be regarded as notable on the basis of just one lucky break with the media. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, to characterize Mr. Baar's long business history and extensive credentials as based on "just one lucky break with the media" is ironically incredible. Fact is, Mr. Baar is 81-year old retired businessman. Fact is, the references you are looking for that support a "golden-age power player" in all likelihood no longer exist.

Would you consider contacting him directly? I am certain he can better help you with what you need. He can be reached at jimbar@omegacom.com.

ADD ONE: See the notes under "Stages to Saturn" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/sp4206.htm [4]. NASA references his book "Polaris" variously. See notes Chapter 1 #s 11, 13 and Chapter 9 #52. Bdconnolly (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]