Revision as of 20:55, 13 January 2007 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Good Article Nomination: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:56, 13 January 2007 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Good Article Nomination: tweakNext edit → | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
:Sam, you are continuing to make this personal, for whatever the reason. As a point of fact, neither Sandy nor I are administrators. Guy is, but I don't see that he was specifically called here to defend This article or Mike. Could you please confine your discussion to the article, and why you think that section is spam? It doesn't not look like spam to me. As Sandy pointed out, it is well reference4d, and seems to meet ]. ] 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | :Sam, you are continuing to make this personal, for whatever the reason. As a point of fact, neither Sandy nor I are administrators. Guy is, but I don't see that he was specifically called here to defend This article or Mike. Could you please confine your discussion to the article, and why you think that section is spam? It doesn't not look like spam to me. As Sandy pointed out, it is well reference4d, and seems to meet ]. ] 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
* Sam, I am an admin and spend much of my Wikitime removing spam. This is not spam. The idea that the company info (as opposed to the bio info) be forked into the ] article has some merit, but there is not so much that Emerson Knives could not be merged into this, either. So please, let's have some constructive suggestions, not arm-waving. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | * Sam, I am an admin and spend much of my Wikitime removing spam. This is not spam. The idea that the company info (as opposed to the bio info) be forked into the ] article has some merit, but there is not so much that Emerson Knives could not be merged into this, either. So please, let's have some constructive suggestions, not arm-waving. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
==Peer review== | ==Peer review== |
Revision as of 20:56, 13 January 2007
Ernest Emerson is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 2007-01-05 Please use the This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |
Biography B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Martial arts B‑class | |||||||
|
Older entries
Old discussions should not be deleted - but archived. Old comments do have their uses and you can't be accused of cover-up.Peter Rehse 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Peter. I will do that in the future...is there a way to archive? I'm still kind of new to this. Thanks --Mike Searson 09:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
For someone new to this - its a very well done article. I'll leave a message on your Talk page about archiving. I rated it as a B but I think it could go higher. I'll mention that also in you talk page.Peter Rehse 10:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter, Thanks again, I've only been doing this off and on the past 4 months as time allows. Any advice you can give for improvement would be a big help. --Mike Searson 10:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not place advertorials into this online encyclopedia. Also, remember that you do not own any Misplaced Pages article, whether or not you started it, think you started it, did a lot of editing to it, or you have a long-term personal relationship with the subject. Please see WP:OWN. Cheers, Sam 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Good Article Nomination
This article does not merit "Good Article" status, yet. It contains a seven thousand word advertorial for Emerson Knives, Inc. as well as link spam to the Emerson Knives, Inc. website. Ernest Emerson's association with Emerson Knives, Inc. is taken care of in the first sentence with a Wikilink to Emerson Knives. Remove the advertorial and the link spam and I see no reason why Mikey's little article can't be judged a "good article." Cheers, Sam 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sam, can you please explain to us how you are distinguishing spam from referenced text about an entity and person which both appear to meet notability requirements? Perhaps if we can understand where you're coming from, we can help you resolve this without edit warring (and please take care with WP:3RR. Also, language like "Mikey's little article" isn't productive. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sam, your patronizing attitude is bordering on a personal attack. Please try to tone down your sarcasm and edit constructively. Thanks. Jeffpw 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well I would agree that it is a tiny bit florid in places, but there is no denying that the claims are all well substantiated and the article is impeccably sourced. So instead of throwing brickbats, Sam, how about proposing some specific changes for debate? Guy (Help!) 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to, Sandy. This article handles Ernest Emerson's association with Emerson Knives, Inc. in the fist sentence. Readers can read all the joyful product announcements and the glorious history of Emerson Knives that Mike wants to tell them about by following the Wikilink. They don't need a seven-thousand word advertorial in the middle of a biographical aricle.
I apologize for editing the article while it was under peer review. A biographical article containing link spam and a seven-thousand advertorial for a corporation is, ipso facto, not a good article no matter whose definition you use. Consequently, it never occured to me that one could be nominated for Good Article status. Still, I should have looked for it.
As far as your reference to an edit war is concerned, notice how Mike calls in the admins almost every time someone attempts to edit one of "his" articles. I think a better understanding of "ownership" would help him a great deal here at Misplaced Pages. That's why I posted a link to WP:OWN. Sam 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Wereb (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
- Sam, you are continuing to make this personal, for whatever the reason. As a point of fact, neither Sandy nor I are administrators. Guy is, but I don't see that he was specifically called here to defend This article or Mike. Could you please confine your discussion to the article, and why you think that section is spam? It doesn't not look like spam to me. As Sandy pointed out, it is well reference4d, and seems to meet notability requirements. Jeffpw 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sam, I am an admin and spend much of my Wikitime removing spam. This is not spam. The idea that the company info (as opposed to the bio info) be forked into the Emerson Knives article has some merit, but there is not so much that Emerson Knives could not be merged into this, either. So please, let's have some constructive suggestions, not arm-waving. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Peer review
For reference, here is the peer review, which is hidden in a drop-down on those silly templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: