Misplaced Pages

Directory:
Archives
March 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – April 2007 May 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – May 2008 May 2008 – July 2009 August 2009 –

DYK for Ruth L. Kirschstein

On December 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruth L. Kirschstein, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:AN discussion of a topic ban for an editor

Hello Scientizzle. The thread about Mccready may need to be refocused. To clarify matters, I am thinking of making an entry in WP:RESTRICT to record the current status of the (unexpired) topic ban that was imposed in May, 2008, per a discussion that you closed back then. Please comment on this draft entry:

His probation on pseudoscience and alternative medicine was only for one year, and it expired in May, 2009. I'm not 100% sure what the following sentence is supposed to apply to: "He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and he is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring". If you think that applies to ALL articles, then maybe a separate restriction should be added to the table. Unless anyone sees a mistake in this version, I am planning to go ahead and add it to the table. If the current AN thread lifts or modifies his restriction, the entry can be modified then. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I'd drop the last sentence as it applied specifically to the "probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed".

If it needn't be quoted verbaitm, the whole thing could read:

Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture- and chiropractic-related topics, broadly construed, except reversion of blatant vandalism.

— Scientizzle 20:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, how's this? I believe that verbatim is not always followed literally in this table, except that the actual text of any restrictive clauses ought to be kept. The clause about vandalism may not be needed, and it may have been part of his expired probation, anyway.

Do you think the above is a correct reading of his current status? EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. The vandalism clause would just be common sense, however, as a topic ban shouldn't preclude the correction of blatant and obvious vandalism. Then again, that just basic common sense and shouldn't even need to be spelled out... — Scientizzle 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The re-direction of ASI

Dear Sir,
May I request you to please don't re-direct the page of ASI. You should ponder upon Messiah Foundation International.--Spiritualism (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ponder Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. — Scientizzle 13:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Community renewal Society article

I am an employee at the community renewal society and I would like to post a history of our organization on the wikipedia. some of the content is based on our website history and a community renewal society 1882-1982 100 years of service, a book published by the Chicago review press. Here is the content i would like to publish: does it meet wikipedia guidelines?

Community Renewal Society formally known as the Chicago City Missionary Society was founded in December 14, 1882 by Caleb F. Gates, Silas M. Moore, Robert E. Jenkins, F.S. Hanson, William E. Hale, Fredrick G. Ensign and Burke F. Leavitt. The laypersons and clergymen wanted to promote religion and morality in Chicago.

Since its creation, Community Renewal Society has adapted to the changing needs of Chicago and it continues to offer innovative approaches to deeply rooted urban problems.

Today, Community Renewal Society provides leadership and support in several areas including: public housing, education, criminal justice, youth advocacy and senior issues.

“To me there is greater pleasure in the power to relieve the wants of the truly needy than in aught else I know of,” said Gates, first president of the Community Renewal Society.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Community Renewal Society helped create and shape the religious infrastructure for newly arrived immigrants through the founding of churches, schools and settlement houses.

During the great depression of the 1930s, Community Renewal Society's network of congregations and communities worked with the politicians to create solutions to deepening social and economic problems of that time.

In the 1960s, as the demand for an end to segregation gathered momentum, Community Renewal Society trained thousands of clergy and lay persons in the Civil Rights Movement to promote racial understanding and urban ministry, both locally and nationally.

For the last 38 years, Community Renewal Society has provided investigative reporting on issues of education, politics, housing, crime, social justice and economic conditions through its award winning publications: The Chicago Reporter and Catalyst Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.perry.t (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well...here are a few considerations:

• Article subjects should meet general notability guidelines: you should be able to demonstrate coverage from independent reliable sources. The book is a good example, but you should find maybe some news coverage about it.
• The content must be informative without reading like an advertisement. What you have above isn't appropriate for an encyclopdia. All content here must demonstrate a neutral point-of-view. It should also be free of copyrighted text.
• As an employee of the society, please be aware of Misplaced Pages's conflict-of-interest guidelines. While this won't preclude you from participating, you should exercise caution with how you proceed.

What I'll do is restore the deleted content at Community Renewal Society to a page in your workspace where you can work on the content: User:R.perry.t/Community Renewal Society. Use the time & opportunity to adjust prose and reference sources. Cheers, — Scientizzle 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay so I understand now. I am now, searching through our archives to throughly meet the guidelines of wikipedia, with caution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.perry.t (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Question? The book referenced isn't enough? So what your saying is that I should find actual news clippings that reference the organizations historic context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.perry.t (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Battle for God

I see that on 20 Nov 2009 you put a Notability tag on this article. I've just found 12 other references to the book in Misplaced Pages, to which I've added links. Does this satisfy your criterion for notability? I see you've also put an 'original research' tag on this and am a bit puzzled by it. The only research I did, apart from reading the book, was to follow up one of the references. Could you explain what needs to be done? There are 3 references in what is yet a quite short article. Chris55 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

While incoming Misplaced Pages links are good, the don't satisfy notability guidelines. What the article needs is some citations of media coverage from reliable sources--book reviews or news articles about the topic, for example. Given that the author & publisher are clearly notable, I think it's very likely that appropriate sources can be found (and, thus, deletion seems wholly unnecessary).

The original research tag is a reminder that things like a book synopsis can benefit greatly from seconday sources, reducing the possibility of a Misplaced Pages editor making erroneous or potentially biased statements. I'd say the content looks like it's probably a fair & accurate account of the subject, however I've not read the work and don't honestly know. If some reliable secondary source has published a synopsis, it would be very useful in overcoming this issue.

Finally, I think the article could be better if there's any sourced material that discusses the impact, if any, of the book on larger aspects of religious scholarship or popular culture. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a short appraisal from the NYT review which I hope satisfies both your first and last points. The original research criterion is a little more difficult when applied to book reviews. Is it better to quote the original or people's reactions to it? I was rather hoping other people would add to the article and maybe since the cross-links people will do so. But I will try and add a summary of some of the reactions to the book. Chris55 (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The NYT cite is excellent. Directly quoting a couple salient passages of the book is a good way to get the message of the work across without messing with anyone's interpretations. However, it's perfectly reasonable to lean on the NYT or other reviews for breaking down the message(s) within the book. Kudos, though, on your work--I think it's a good article. — Scientizzle 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

deletion of "Building with Concrete"

My new article "Building with Concrete" has been deleted, apparently because there is already an article on concrete on Misplaced Pages. The latter covers concrete in general terms, with sections on history, composition, production, properties etc. "Building with Concrete" deals specifically with using concrete as a construction material for homes and buidings, comparing it with other materials. It should be undeleted and linked to the general article on concrete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skifree11 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll undelete Building with Concrete and move the contents to User:Skifree11/concrete. There you can work on the content. To be honest, I don't think there needs to be a separate article on this particular function of concrete, and whatever citable claims should simply go in the main concrete article. Furthermore, the content of your article plainly reads like an advertisement (e.g., "No matter how one looks at it, concrete is the ideal choice as the construction material for homes and buildings. It is superior to wood and steel for safety, climate change issues, sustainability, energy efficiency and recycling.") and contains a number of unsupported assertions. — Scientizzle 15:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 15:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)