User talk:DMRRT

Welcome

Hello, DMRRT, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

This is your only warning. You are not allowed to remove AfD templates. If this [1] happens again, you may be blocked from editing.Jeppiz (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to take part in the discussion here and I hope you take part, but you are not allowed to try to censor the discussion from taking place.Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Margaret Varnell Clark

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Margaret Varnell Clark, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jeppiz (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discussing what may and may not be used as part of an AfD discussion is a distraction

Let me do my best here instead.

First let me reiterate what is required:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage

That ought to be clear, but there is some wriggle room. Some, but by no means all, Youtube channels may be seen as WP:RS. We have WP:RSN to ask about specific linked references in the context of specific linked articles. You should use that.

Then let me look at her work.

Her books themselves and almost certainly not appropriate as references. Reviews of her books are references for those books, but are borderline references for the lady herself.

Her papers, unless peer reviewed (or similar status), cannot be references. If peer reviewed (etc) then they are useful as references for part of the article.

You must have references for all other aspects of her life for the facts you assert in the article, and there must not be events smallest scent of promotion in this.

When you look at the references, please be absolutely certain that any new references you use meet these tough criteria, and remove or replace any that do not. WP:PRIMARY explains how some small use may be made of primary sources.

Does that help the question you phrased in the AfD? Fiddle Faddle 13:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFB should also help you here. Fiddle Faddle 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank you DMRRT (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so, almost at once, you move forward with a cavalier disregard of advice. I wonder if you realise how badly you are harming your case for retention of the article? While striving to assume your good faith I am increasingly wondering if you ate here for some other purpose than creating an encyclopaedia.

Just so you understand, I have no idea who this woman is, no interest in her topic area, and do not mind whether she is a best seller or an author of books that are pulped at once. I only care, only care, about the quality of articles, and the prevention of the use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HI I said Thank you and am trying to do what you all are telling me to do. Fix there references. But I am getting conflicting advise, and you all seem to be very hostile and intent on deleting the page, every couple of hours. before anything can be fixed. DMRRT (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no conflicting advice. Every experienced user who has commented has recommended the article be deleted. Not because of any hostility, but because there is nothing to suggest she is notable. Every user has said this, and explained that your extensive use of whatever you can find is not relevant. Despite that, you just press on. It's as if you thought we all said "This is not yet enough". Nobody has said that, we have all said "This is not relevant", and we have all explained why. As Timtrent wrote, you do not appear to be here to create an encyclopaedia but just to make this particular individual more known. Among the advices I gave already yesterday was to read WP:COI.Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting conflicting advice. Just so that you are clear, let me be very precise and very plain:

Remove the references that do not pass these criteria, all of them: "Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage "
Supply only references that meet those criteria
Remove any hint of promotion

By following this path, if the article is keepable it will be kept. Follow your route and you are likely to ensure that it is deleted. Why? Because no-one can see the wood form the trees. Work such as that which you are doing devalues Wikipedia.

If you have even the smallest question about this, ask me. Do not accuse me of being hostile to you. This is an inappropriate behaviour on your part and a wholly incorrect interpretation of my motives, motives I have stated to you with absolute clarity. Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note your latest post on the deletion discussion. Let me reassure you. This discussion is scheduled to run for seven days.

I also note the term "We" in use by you, not for the first time. You may collaborate with other editors, but you may not let those other editors share your account. Please confirm explicitly that it is just you, yourself, using this account. Please also confirm, explicitly, that this is the sole account that you are using in the article and in the deletion discussion.

Relax. This is a deletion discussion which will not close early (0.9 probability)

Actually listen to the advice you are given and implement it. Instead of removing the bad references you are adding more bad references. This is guaranteed to fail.

Recognise that, if the lady is not proven to be notable by the references that we require, not those you imagine we require, that she has no place here. Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is just me. I have worked with other editors and I only have one account. I did not appreciate of being accused of having multiple accounts yesterday. And it does seem that every time I turn around Jeppiz is recommending this entry for speedy deletion. She has done it 3 times in the last 18 hours or so. I do appreciate your help. I am trying to fix it.

So let's step back a minute. You don't want me to list all her articles. You want me to show that they have been cited by others. But there doesn't seem to be a single source that does that. Even google scholar is not pulling them up that way. I am looking at a list of about 70 books and maybe 40- 50 ( the list of dissertations is 3 pages single spaced) of masters and Phd theseis that reference her work. So what should I put up there as references?

One of the really amazing things about this lady is that she has just as many credentials in medicine as she has in Shakespeare, and I know we haven't even scratched the surface on her television work. But because of Hurricane Katrina, that will be hard to document. Other than what was listed in who's who - most of it was lost. DMRRT (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DMRRT, I'm sorry to assume bad faith, but are you seriously claiming that you know nothing about Literarydiva and nothing about RCP110? You claim you are not them, and that you have not told them to come here? You argue that it is just a coincidence that an account that has not been active for one year suddenly turn up to support you, and that a brand new account is registered, whose first and only action is to support you? It's also completely untrue of you to claim I have recommended this for speedy deletion three times. I recommended it once for speedy, and then on the suggestion of an admin instead recomended it once for a normal AfD. Claiming that I have recommended it for speedy three times is very dishonest of you.

Last but not least, to be very clear. Showing that she has been cited sometimes by others is not even nearly enough. There tens of thousands of academics who are cited at least 100 times in peer-reviewed publications without being even slightly notable. So the fact that we cannot even find any substantial number of cites for her on Google scholar is a strong indication she is not notable, but be aware that finding 100 works that cite her would not really change a thing, as that would still just equal an ordinary non-notable average academic.Jeppiz (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I really can't see multiple attempts at speedy deletion. Let's park that issue. In fact let's ignore it. It should not concern you or me in your efforts to prove notability.

Thank you for confirming that you are just you, using one account. We are strict about that.

Now, let us be careful here. If the lady has written a great deal there are one or more indices that hold details of the material she has written. My preference in an article is thus to list the most significant perhaps two or three, and note that she has been a prolific author. I then use thinned or indices to act as a citation for her output. This serves two purposes:

it removes clutter and the potential for over referencing
It demonstrates beyond question that she had a prodigious output.

With me so far? I hope so

If her work is well cited, Google Scholar ought to show at least the volume of citations. It is not an area I enter. Other editors have far more skill in that area. That volume of citations may be enough on its own to prove her notability. WP:PROF is your guiding star here.

The shakespeare material ought to be able to be handled in the same manner.

The TV material. Let's be careful here. Being on TV is not, of itself, notable. If it was part of her work to be on TV then it is not a reference. It's interesting but it is not notability. Have I explains this by comparing a person's work to making vacuum cleaners? If not ask me to do so.

Credentials are far less important to Wikipedia than notability. I would set aside her credentials almost entirely and concentrate on her notability.

Prove to me that she is notable in Wikipedia terms and I will change my opinion at the deletion discussion. Doing so is of no consequence to me. It will mean that you have proven your case. I told you I don;t care if she has an article or not, I think. I just care that, if she has one, she meets all the criteria to have one.

Now, take it slow and steady. With references, usually, the fewer the better provided each fact that is susceptible to potential challenge is cited. Take out your scalpel and cut, cut, and cut again. Cut the dodgy references, the unreliable sources, the passing mentions and those where there is no mention all (Yes, you have some of those). Look in particular at WP:CITEKILL. This is important because all those lists of references, apart for being irrelevant, create a lump for the reader. We aim for prose that is readable. Cite kill also kills readability.

Is there anything I have said that you need to ask me about? Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I am getting it. So if we look at the first couple of sentences. I have identified 61 Reuters stories some of which are still being referenced. These were picked up worldwide by the Washington Post, the NY Times, etc, but are now behind there firewalls for teh most part. And I have 448 Advance News articles. The Advance archive only goes back to 2000 and she started with them in 1990, so there are probably closer to 900 articles there. So, I'll cut that down to one reference each and they show her credentials. So it that OK? I have lots of these types of references, but they are behind a firewall to the average reader Health Officials Warn of 'Klingerman Virus' E-Mail Hoax By Margaret A. Varnell Reuters http://washingtonpost.com:80/wp-dyn/articles/A58021-2000May23.html

Could you clarify that above, please? Are the articles about her, written by somebody else? In that case, we would have a strong case for notability. Or are they articles written by her on different subjects? In that case, she was doing a job and it's not notable, unless in exceptional cases (she was the first to uncover a major news story, such as Watergate). Just being a journalist writing articles does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Again, if there are articles about her in WP and NYT, do post them as that would probably show notability.Jeppiz (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are both. Articles written by her and about her. There are also several instances where her work is included as the the foundation for clinical guidelines and national protocols. In France: http://theses.ulaval.ca/archimede/fichiers/29912/29912.pdf Across the EU: http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/23/2917?rss%253D1= She is widely used in Spain as well. Which is why she is going to be lecturing and advising there in a few weeks. http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/10822 and http://cesearchengine.com/ce_details.php?ce_id=22769 She is also a guideline reviewer for the AHRQ here in the US. But If I say that, it sounds promotional. In Indonesia the government translated her text book and it is their National Guideline used across the country. That is why she was invited to lecture there last year. The Japanese have translated her book as well, but I can't read what they are doing with it. That is the medical part. In the Shakespeare part she is discussed in books and theseis https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cS2WPLOyB9QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=margaret+varnell+shakespeare+&ots=rYqFd3fwHn&sig=AqwRiYaodgp0_c576SNC5jwu43Q#v=onepage&q=varnell%20&f=false

But again, don't want to sound promotional. I have that list of over 70 books and those 3 pages of thesis that reference or cite her work in some way. What do you think of the first few paragraphs. Up to the bibliography section?

Sorry, I do think you think that that is notability, I don't doubt you on that, but it really isn't. Being cited in books and theses is not even remotely enough for notability, as WP:ACADEMIC describes in some detail. Academic citations need to be in their thousands, literally, to be enough for notability. And you never answered the question about your connection to Literarydiva and RCP110.Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We were asked to drop that, but you can't seem to let it go. I have one accolunt. I am not them.

Maybe I can put this a little more succinctly. She is the person that countries turn to and they use her books and writings to develop their national asthma programs. The other thing is and it is hard to document, she was the Special Studies Coordinator that ran the collaborative for Medicare in CKD, for the Georgia QIO. I realize you have no idea what that means. The National Quality standards that are currently mandated by Obamacare and used by CMS, she ran the program that developed and tested them. Here is the Medicare funding table that shows the money going to Georgia.

https://books.google.com/books?id=W3GdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT425&lpg=PT425&dq=chronic+kidney+disease+georgia+QIO&source=bl&ots=A4QA1CHslc&sig=fimJVHyQAkTF_PmeY5s6xG-oQts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bb1TVd3yCcu5ogSIhICABA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=chronic%20kidney%20disease%20georgia%20QIO&f=false

You seem to have this body count mentality about citation numbers. That is not what it is about.

Do pardon me, but that is what it is about. You try to argue her notability on academic merits, I'm pointing out she is (very) far from academic notability under WP:ACADEMIC. That's not my mentality, it's Wikipedia's rule. To be honest, if you still don't get this, I'm afraid it means you don't have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. That is not intended to be mean, it's just a simple matter of fact. And I notice you refuse to answer the question about your links to Literarydiva and RCP110. You say you're not them, but that's not what I asked. I asked about your connection to them and how they turned up from nowhere just to support.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reference for a living person, And how their work probably does not qualify

Let me be 100% clear and unambiguous

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is

about them, and
is independent of them, and
is in WP:RS, and
is significant coverage

An item that is by them cannot be independent of them

When something is by them then that is their work. This can only be a reference in very particular circumstances. Usually it is not valid. Let me try to explain. If s/he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be her/his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for her/him, simply because it is the product s/he makes. So it is with research. However, a review of her/his work by others tends to be a review of her/him and her/his methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for her/his work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely

It is really important that you understand this. Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps going back and forth, I have some 70 books and 3 pages of doctoral thesis that reference, as well as other articles that use, and discuss Miss Clark's work. In addition, please see the links above from Europe, Indonesia, and Japan. I am not trying to force her into academia. But since we keep getting pushed that way, here is what the academia page says:

Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.

However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.

Miss Clark meets these 3 criteria.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. DMRRT (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep insisting it goes back and forth, even though it's remarkably clear. Part of the problem may be that your first premise is to include her, secondary to argue for why to include her. That's not how we see it, we only care about the second. None of the 3 criteria you mention apply, at the very least none of them have been verified.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - This would apply to Stephen Hawking. I think you don't understand what "substantial impact" means. Giving some guest lectures, having a book translated or writing some articles in the popular press is not a substantial impact.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. - Nothing of the kind has even been suggested. Just like you misunderstand "substantial", here you misunderstand "well-established". The minimum criteria here would be inclusion in the annual Journal Citation Report with a high impact factor. Nothing of the kind has been established.

9. The person is in a field of literature - This certainly does not apply, and let's not even waste any more time on that dead end. She is the author of a self-publihshed book about Rome. That is very far from notability for an author.Jeppiz (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In general, DMRRT, a conversation is a two way thing. one person speaks, the other acknowledges, and then speaks. People converse. Conclusions can be drawn. Right now I have no interest n whether she passes the criteria. I am speaking to you about referencing. I was anticipating an acknowledgement of understanding before we moved to another topic.

I have been spending a disproportionate effort in attempting to help you to understand the things that are required of you as the editor making these edits. WP:BURDEN is yours. I have come to the conclusion with reluctance that I will wish you good luck and now ignore you and your efforts. I have tried, but you seem unable or unwilling to grasp the things I am saying to you, or, perhaps, to acknowledge that you have heard or understood. The community will decide on the article, by consensus, as it does regularly. It may make an error, it may not.

Goodbye and good luck! I am done here. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you go. I do appreciate your help. I have asked questions that have gone unanswered and instead have been asked repeatedly if I am those other people. I have asked earlier if the first few paragraphs were ok? I am trying to use references that validate the content and are from 3rd party sources. For the first paragraph:

Reference 1 - demonstrates that she has worked in the media and validates her credentials as a nurse and as a writer. It is from large 3rd party publisher. (She has an additional 488 article in print with this publisher.) Reference 2 – is by the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment which demonstrates that her work is used by others in the field to develop their programs/articles. Reference 3 - From AKH, an independent 3rd party site validates that she lectures overseas as guest faculty. Reference 4 and 5 – Are from Florida Medical Association and demonstrate that she often asked to develop as the sole faculty, peer reviewed physician education programs. I am not sure how to show that without at the same time showing the work that is by her. Unless we should just link to the landing page for these programs?

Is this what you want?

Talkback

Hello, DMRRT. You have new messages at DGG's talk page.
Message added 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per [2], you are blocked indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]