Talk:Renato M. E. Sabbatini

Autobio

Professor Sabbatini sounds like a great person, but wikipedia has a policy against writing autobiographies. Wikipedia:Auto-biography This article should be converted into a userpage. -Willmcw 00:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this policy unclear? -Willmcw 04:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assume that question isn't directed toward me? --allie 19:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not unless you are user:Rsabbatini or article subject "Renato M.E. Sabbatini". Cheers, -Willmcw 19:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neither, and deleted his name as "author" of the Cesare Lombroso page. Put in a vanity vfd yesterday, hence the query. Best regards, --22:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notice, of course, that WP:AUTO is not a policy, but an (overused) guideline. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

— JIP | Talk 06:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Even so it seems somehow unethical to use the Wikipedia for personal advertising. Notice that not only this but several other pages related to it were basically written by user:Rsabbatini. For instance: Center_for_Biomedical_Informatics, Edumed Institute for Education in Medicine and Health, Brazilian Society for Health Informatics and several more. Tsf (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Troll?

This article was nominated for deletion by editor GoOdCoNtEnT who has been seemingly randomly asking people to nominate someonne for deletion and then arguing not to delete them, see here. I've removed the deletion notice. Nrets 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost completely unsourced

Almost everything in this article is unsourced, or the sources cited are organization's websites saying nothing about Sabbatini or what's asserted in the article. Most of these statements are true no doubt, but that's not good enough -- for inclusion they must be verified by reliable, independent sources (not websites of defunct magazines founded by Sabbatini, or other Wikipedia articles written by Sabbatini and also unsourced). This will mean some things must be omitted, but quite bluntly if there's no independent source for a given thing Sabbatini did -- if there's been no independent comment on it -- then it's probably not worth mentioning anyway. This doesn't mean Dr. Sabbatini himself isn't notable, but all this talk of "first" and "pioneering" and so on is completely out of place on Wikipedia, particularly since the subject himself wrote most of such text. A much, much scaled-down article is needed, relating notable activities, not everything Sabbatini ever did (such as being secretary of some organization, with no particular accompolishment being called out -- and verified -- as being achieved via his efforts in that position). Sabbatini can put additional material on his user page if he wants; see Wikipedia:Auto-biography which, yes, is a guideline not a policy, but which people ignore at significant cost to all of us, as it well explains. Upsala (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unknowm user totally spoiling stable article

Please Upsala, identify yourself or I will report you to Wikipedia editors and remove all your remarks. You have no user page. R.Sabbatini (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Wikipedia editor, so you can report me to me. You're a Wikipedia editor too, so you could report me to yourself while you're at it. But you would be extremely ill-advised to remove the tags, except when and as the sourcing each tag calls for is verified to be present in the article. That would get someone "reported" -- with embarassing consequences.

The detailed tagging may seem excessive at first glance, but in light of your unexplained removal (see [1]) of the whole-article tags (stating, quite correctly, that the article reads like a CV and contains almost no sources, and that where there are sources, they often do not support the assertions made, or are either self-published by you or closely associate with you) it seemed necessary to demonstrate just how littered the article is with those problems.

Several editors have encouraged you to review Wikipedia:AUTO. Some highlights you should consider (all of these are quotes from that guideline, with emphasis added in places):

• Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.
• [Autobiographies] are often biased, usually positively...
• Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just active, deliberate self-promotion....
• If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later.
• Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think.
• Note that anything you submit will be edited mercilessly by others. Many autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community...
• If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral... [A]ll encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia.
• One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget..."
• [O]ne should also make considerations of time and effort upon the Wikipedia community, as well as one's reputation. ... [Writing an autobiography and editing an article about yourself] may also result in a reputation hit not only because you violated the guideline but also because you may have wasted someone's effort.
• The proper way to get your own writing about yourself...is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, [which by your doing indicates] that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest.

Instead of worrying about who I am, I suggest you start adding neutral, third-party (non-self-published) citations for everything you wish to see remain in the article. I've made it easy for you to track your progress with the handy and similar tags, which you can remove as you go (or in the instance here or there where a tag was added inappropriately, you should explain that on Talk). Since you are the article's subject, you are in an especially good position to do this work and further, since essentially the entire article personally written by you, I believe you have a positive duty to do it, instead of asking others to do it for you. I'm confident it won't be long before most of the tags are gone (or explained on Talk). Whatever's left after that is going to have to be removed from the article.

Upsala (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This "stable" article has been stable, but Upsala has done nothing inappropriate. I've reviewed the article history and the previous deletion debate, and I don't think this article has much going for it based on Upsala's review of the numerous non-English references. The ones in English don't actually establish notability. There is a Portuguese Wikipedia - perhaps editors there will have a different opinion, but I am going to renominate this for deletion. If additional sources establishing notability are found, I have no doubt that the community will again choose to keep this article.--otherlleft 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been almost a week and Sabbatini has done nothing to add sources to the article (though he's been active on other articles) I'm going ahead and removing the unsourced material. If Sabbatini insists on continuing to edit his own bio (which he really should not) he can restore material if and as he finds appropriate, verifiable cites. Upsala (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now done as I said. I did it in little steps so that, should any one removal of material turn out to be inappropriate (i.e. the statement is in fact sourced) it can be easily restored. Upsala (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-description by Sabbatini

Upsala, did you re-add the citation to an old version of his userpage?--otherlleft 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I think we've had a miscommunication. Either the quote and accompanying cite can remain, or they both can go, but the quote can't stay without the cite. That's why I didn't understand what you did, because you kept the quote and killed the cite. Your edit summary said "eliminate circular ref" but I didn't understand that either: I thought you were saying that Wikipedia can't cite Wikipedia in general (which is true, of course). But this is a bit different: this is an article on Sabbatini, and something he himself said can be cited, as long as it's verifiably something he said, even if the original place he said it is his Wikipedia talk page -- that's not a circular ref. Since you left the quote in, I figured you were OK with its being in the article, you just wanted the cite to be appopriate. My subsequent edit summary tried to show that the old cite was OK, and restored it. (And by the way, it's a not a ref to an old version of Sabbatini's user page, but just a diff which zooms in on where his comment is on his very long User Talk -- the comment is still there in the current version so I wasn't dredging up some old deleted material, if that's what you thought.)

Anyway, I hope this clears things up, or maybe I'm missing the point somewhere. I really don't care whether the quote stays or goes -- you decide -- but if it stays, the cite has to stay too. Upsala (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see the confusion. I wasn't clear, but I left the quote itself in with the hopes that a better source could be found. I think citing a person's own userpage really strains the tenets of WP:SPS.--otherlleft 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Renato M. E. Sabbatini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306173304/http://www.amia.org:80/pubs/symposia/D004468.PDF to http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D004468.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041128233608/http://adams.mgh.harvard.edu:80/PDF_Repository/D004469.PDF to http://adams.mgh.harvard.edu/PDF_Repository/D004469.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041129000857/http://adams.mgh.harvard.edu:80/PDF_Repository/D005202.PDF to http://adams.mgh.harvard.edu/PDF_Repository/D005202.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010325/http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D005028.PDF to http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D005028.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405090320/http://www.amia.org:80/pubs/symposia/D004772.PDF to http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D004772.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Renato M. E. Sabbatini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706150541/http://memoria.cnpq.br/sobrecnpq/premios/josereis/premiados.htm to http://memoria.cnpq.br/sobrecnpq/premios/josereis/premiados.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D004468.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adams.mgh.harvard.edu/PDF_Repository/D004469.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adams.mgh.harvard.edu/PDF_Repository/D005202.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D004772.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)