User talk:Lou Sander/Archive 10

VP-6 page

The VP-6 page has a lot of content about VP-5. As a former aircrewman with the Blue Sharks I will be updating the page with content from our website. Thank you for creating the page. Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a great thing to do, but please keep two things in mind: 1) anything you add should be traceable to a reliable source. Personal memories, etc. aren't really acceptable, and 2) when I created the article, I used a pretty reliable source. If your material contradicts it, please let people know. Best is to use the article's talk page. (I could have made mistakes, of course, but I'm normally pretty meticulous about sources.) If you need any help with working in Wikipedia, just let me know. I'm not an all-knowing source, but I've done a LOT of editing work. Lou Sander (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I just looked at the article and I see what you mean. Somebody seems to have screwed up, probably me. The DANAS material that I used for a source isn't available online right now. I hope they haven't taken it down for good. Lou Sander (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Hi Lou. I'll be curious to see where the discussion on the controversy article ends up. I would have a hard time making up my mind myself were I voting.

In the meanwhile, I was wondering how you felt about the draft material and the Early Life section specifically. Should we be waiting for everything else to settle down first or is it ok to start working on the rest of the article? Doesn't seem like much potential for COI issues and the discussion on the controversy article shouldn't effect the main page on her, but I'm not sure if I am being too annoying/persistent/aggressive in asking while so many other discussions are already ongoing. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I like it, but haven't checked the references. I'm assuming they are solid. I'd wait until all the fuss dies down over the "controversy" article. I've seen situations where certain Wikipedians get bent out of shape over something, then break a lot of dishes if they don't get their way. Some such fellow might just go into a snit over your COI, even though you have openly disclosed it and seem to be doing professional-level work with things Mylan and Bresch. My advice is to wait until the fuss is over and the combatants have gone on to other things. Then resume making good edits to the noncontroversial articles that remain.

I think the guy who suggested renaming the controversy article as "West Virginia University MBA Scandal" (or whatever it is that he is proposing) has the right idea. The scandal stands alone as a scandal, and doesn't get swept under the rug. It can be referenced in the articles on WVU, History of WVU, Heather Bresch, etc. in whatever way is fair to them. Mildest, but not necessarily best, would be to put a "See also" in the articles about the involved parties.

The scandal is over, the appropriate heads have rolled, and those involved can go on with their now-chastened lives. Lou Sander (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good advice sir. CorporateM (Talk) 06:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The AfD and article-merge discussions are closed and a new BLPN discussion is dead. Any "fuss" seems to have died down. I was wondering if you still had an interest on working on the rest of the article on Bresch page with me? CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad to do it. Nomo has (rightfully IMHO) removed the mention of her undergrad degree from the "controversy" section (or whatever it is), leaving nothing at all about her early life. If you have an "Early life" section to suggest, I'd be happy to vet it and post it in the Bresch article, with changes, if any are called for. As I remember, you did have one, and it looked pretty good, but I didn't even look at the references. I would be willing to do other stuff, too, as long as it passes muster with my own good judgment. Lou Sander (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the draft early life and family section is right here. If you need a PDF copy of the "Leading Ladies" article that is not online, just shoot me an email and I can provide it. The rest of the draft is at the same URL as well. However, considering how many editors have an interest in the page now, it would probably be best to share the draft one section at-a-time on Talk (the early life section having been shared already). There are some items regarding awards and avoiding advocacy for the legislation she pushed through (while describing that she advocated for them) that may attract some debate in the Career section. CorporateM (Talk) 22:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Pittsburgh meetup

• Wikimedia:Meetup Pittsburgh

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This message is about a meet-up for Wikipedians from/in/around Pittsburgh in April. Just click on the link for complete information.

  Bfpage |leave a message  17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so. The link leads to a Wikimedia Foundation page that has no text. Lou Sander (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bill Barwick

Hello! Your submission of Bill Barwick at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Psychologie Barnstar

		The Psychology Barnstar
		For your impressively comprehensive work on The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, its 20+ volumes, its editor Gerhard Adler, and its hardworking translator R. F. C. Hull, groupuscule hereby awards you this symbolic (Gestaltist-inspired, perhaps archetypally ambiguous) token of appreciation. Thank you for your efforts and your contributions to world knowledge. groupuscule (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you for this Lou. Let me know how I might be involved. Lou, can i also get some colleagues in America involved? I was thinking of Leonard Press and Bob Sanet in particular (they are easy enough to find on the internet if you wish to look them up).

Walter O'Brien

Hi Lou. I hope you stick around on the Heather Bresch page. I'd still really like to trim the primary sources and trivial awards and introduce more secondary sources about her primary claims to notability (CEO, legislation, female exec), however I felt this article could also use your patient, cool-headed and collaborative method to editing if you have an interest. (I have no COI here)

This page has been the subject of numerous disputes taking place in the form of RFCs and noticeboard posts. There are very good reasons for it to require special attention and discussion; There was a controversy regarding many newspapers publishing unconfirmed claims from him, that turned out to be very suspect. Many sources have conflicting information.

My prior edits to the page have been very welcomed and after seeing it again at RSN, I took up the task of re-writing the entire article and checking each of its 20+ sources. I think articles like this are a good way to help new editors settle their arguments and have a positive experience on Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I will definitely stick around Heather Bresch. A couple of occasional editors there have a bad reputation with me, and if they become more involved, I will definitely step aside for a while. See THIS. Walter O'Brien looks interesting, but I don't think I have time to get involved. I'll put it on my watchlist, though. (I like the humor in the last line of the article -- "He is Irish and doesn't drink alcohol.") Wiki work is only one of my activities, and I expect to be tied up for a while with Heather, as well as Vision therapy and Behavioral optometry, both of which need a lot of work and both of which I have a personal interest in. I definitely agree with your take on helpful activities for new editors. BTW, one of my other recent activities is HERE. Even if you don't like the music, ya gotta agree it's a pretty cool website. Lou Sander (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like the O'Brien page finally cooled off. I got the impression that the editors were more interested in proving their point to each other than improving the article. Once certain editors backed off, so did others, under the premise that there was no reason to participate if their counter-parts weren't there to argue with.

Do you still have an interest in continuing to hammer out the Heather Bresch page? It still has loads of primary sources and doesn't include much information about the primary things she is notable for. I think the Early life and career string is at a natural end; I'm seeing "no consensus" about items 1-4. That being said there is some support for trimming the dedicated section title Nomo keeps adding and trimming the section. For example, МандичкаYO said "WP guidelines for BLP (WP:CRITS) guard against against "Controversy" sections. It should be as brief as possible and link to the main article" and Ugog said "Summarising would require us to go into a lot of details. A shorter mention is probably enough." I don't know about "a short mention" being enough, but...

That being said it may also be easier to just focus on mundane stuff that's missing about her professional career, rather than harping on the early life section. If you do want to keep working on it, just let me know how/if I can help or where we should pick off from. CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Yes, I'm interested in continuing to work on Heather. I have a lot of other interests, though, in Wiki and outside. The Wiki ones at the moment don't involve controversy. It is just SO tiresome and SUCH a time sink to get into long discussions with other editors (present company excepted) about minor matters. Please point out one or two career-related matters to fix up or build up, and I'll try to work on it/them. I think I'm in agreement with moving the Advocacy stuff upward, but I'm worried that it might be seen as controversial, and lead to a lot of pointless discussion. Lou Sander (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I started a string here that is along the lines of what you suggested. However, as you saw from my ping, I don't want to drag you to articles you are burnt out on and don't want to participate in. I think if you're burnt out, you should just edit the articles that you want to edit! CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your review of Nespresso at Talk:Nespresso

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Nespresso are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. I have removed the content from the Nespresso talk page and moved it to a newly-created subpage for your convenience.

Birth info reverted for Robert M. Schoch

Hello! While I appreciate your efforts to improve Robert M. Schoch, I reverted your addition of birth info apparently (indirectly) cited to birth records, which is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. If multiple reliable sources mention the year or date of birth, then it may be acceptable to include, but otherwise we should err on the side of privacy for living persons. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)