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.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

stop putting deletion requests for the article there is really a battle in Aleppo between the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Army.IF you do it again i will complain against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining to me and/or threatening to file a complaint, you should address the issues that have been raised by me and others. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aleppo(2012), where constructive and substantial comments are welcome. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the page on content factor i wrote was tagged for speedy deletion--wrongly i believe almost every word on the page was lifted verbatim from a non-copyright article on the subject (from PLoS ONE) content factor was created (as stated!) in response to flaws with Impact Factor. That is, it inherently has a "point of view". But this is a point of view that has passed rigorous peer review and hence (with the caveat that the text discloses that point of view, which it does) should not be deleted 4081xsn (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The peer-reviewed references you've included in the article should be included in the article on Impact factor instead, in a section mentioning problems and with no mention whatsoever of "Content factor" as the solution since they themselves make no mention of it. Sorry, but you gave no reason to believe "Content factor" being the solution to these problems is anyone's opinion but your own. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am at a loss: the community at large says there are flaws with impact factor. (see wikipedia page on that). That's a given. Some researchers devised "content factor" as a response to that. The peer review literature has accepted "content factor" as a valid attempt at remedy. "Content factor" is thus a concept in the peer review literature. There should be a wikipedia page on it. To me, that's a given. Maybe we can debate what that page should say, but it seems to be an abuse of discretion that you are dinging text that peer review literature did not. What am I missing? 4081xsn (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not a given. We have guidelines about the notability of subjects (WP:GNG). The "content factor" has up till now only be mentioned by these authors themselves and nobody else. Given the triviality of their "factor" (it's just the ancient "total cites"), I'd be amazed if this would become an accepted term. Peer review sometimes fails and I think that the fact that this article got published constitutes a possible failure of peer review. I am an academic editor for PLoS ONE myself and am considering contacting the AE who handled this (and possibly higher-level editorial staff). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with whatever you decide on those, and I understand the point about articles preceding the ban; but as you review edits by other editors please note that most edits by "other" editors are edits by other socks of the same fellow. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., in this case, 11 different socks edited the page. JohnInDC (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that I have come across an article created by a sock of this fellow after the ban was in force: one that you might have missed. I was in the process of tagging it when you sent me this message. In any case, if the article was created before August 2008, it can't be speedied per G5. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've missed dozens I'm sure. He's quite prolific and I've never really undertaken a serious sweep of his activity. Thanks for your help and I will keep the August 2008 date in mind so as not to make unnecessary work for admins - thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you put in for deletion claiming such to be spammy, yet the day before or earlier the same day you put in for a redirect thinking that Universal Life Church and Universal Life Church World Headquarters were one in the same. Clearly based on talk on the deletion page both are separate entities. Notability in accord with Wikipedia guidelines, however minute it maybe has been established by a 3rd party.

The Universal Life Church page (not the Universal Life Church World Headquarters page) is long outdated and has zero expert input. You will see that the Universal Life Church website for the Universal Life Church page has not been updated for six years. http://www.ulchq.com The President, Andre Hensley has even publicly stated in the Modesto Bee article he would just assume pastor the local Church and not follow in his Father's footsteps. The Universal Life Church page has not been updated, because it can't updated because the ULC Modesto does not want it to appear they are active. It is by there choice.

I think you were a bit hasty in redirecting their page to the Universal Life Church World Headquarters page, but I can understand why. But at the same token come the next day or later that day you can't blame or fault Universal Life Church World Headquarters because Universal Life Church a separate entity chooses not to update their page.

What needs to be done here is on the Universal Life Church page it needs to be noted that the ulchq.com website denotes inactivity for several years and it can't be established whether this Church is active or not. I do not believe removal is warranted.

I'm asking for you to reconsider your spammy type claims and to lift the page deletion tag you initiated. It is the right thing to do. Many revisions appear to have been made, you would not have redirected the ULC page to the ULC World HQ page if you felt the the ULC World HQ page did not meet Wikipedia guidelines.JordanFrancis (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the headquarters of an organization must be only about the headquarters, never about the organization as a whole. To show that the headquarters meet our inclusion guidelines, you must show that there are sources independent of the organization that give substantial coverage of the headquarters. I find that to be lacking in the article. I'm calling it spammy because it contains mostly the kind of information I'd expect to find on a page the organization itself has made, not the kind I'd expect from third-party reliable coverage which is what a Wikipedia article must be based on.

As for the redirection, it was the only alternative to deletion. Since someone has figured redirecting is not an acceptable solution, then the only alternative to redirection is outright deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== In reading the talk deletion page, it appears 3rd party independent coverage has been added, please give me a day to review this and read the article again. Furthermore the Lisa Williams Wikipedia page also is a 3rd party, and in addition this organization has ordained other celebrities and ex politicians or judges. 3rd party independent maybe minimal, but you must take into consideration the age of the corporation, the fact is it is there. This Hawaii Star Advertiser distinguishes between the two and is a 3rd party. JordanFrancis (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blanchardb,

you marked my first article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Knights_International_Firefighters_Motorcycle_Club with:

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources."

Please read my article, its in!!!

www.wikipedia.de accept this article without comments.

So, whould you please help me to finalize it?

Thanks!

Schweizerlaender (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Schweizerlaender[reply]

References from third-parties are in? I haven't seen any. Please note that I haven't put in any deletion tag, but someone else might. As for the German Wikipedia, your article probably fell through the cracks. Their new page patrol is not as fine-tuned as ours here, and here only about 70% of new articles get "patrolled". -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blanchardb, thanks for your fast answer. Athe the weblinks you will find a report from Belgium national TV station about the last European meeting, see video at 9.45 minutes. If i find mre, i will add more. Is that the way to delete your tag? Best regards Schweizerlaender (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Schweizerlaender[reply]

==Fred Kaplan (biographer) What's the point on using BLP prod for someone who is asserted to have written multiple academic books, when the verification necessary to avoid prod is so easy? Especially when the person has won prizes that make for undoubted notability--tho I haven't sourced that part yet--will do it tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]