Solneffmike

A tag has been placed on NYC Pitch and Shop Writers Conference, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Writing Workshop Promoter Guy

I've naturally noticed the speedy deletions of workshop/conference posts and notes of warning on my personal page. I understand the Wiki arguments that led to these conditions, however, I don't understand the non-universal application. Yes, the same old, howz come the other guys get away with it?

Which I notice you immediately leap into, but I'll get to that.

:Given your unfairness, why not? It's a valid point. You are applying rules selectively.

I actually hesitated with the posts in the past till I saw Bread Loaf and many other for-profit conferences "advertising" their product here.

Do you have some evidence that the people behind Bread Loaf are advertising -- using the actual and not scare-quote definition of the term -- their conference? (Equally, why do you assume they NEED to? But I'll get to that, too.)

:YES. SEE MY NOTE BELOW.

NO, your note below says nothing of the kind. Nixon had his secret plan to end the war, McCarthy had his list of commies in the State Department, and you have your secret evidence of rivals advertising on Wikipedia.

Technically, how can any commercial enterprise be deemed noncommercial or neutral or nonpromoting enough for any Wiki reference? Rock bands, hotels, etc. They're all promoting on Wikipedia.

That argument falls under either:

a) "howz come the other guys get away with it" if you believe the people behind those various enterprises are advertising -- using the actual and not scare-quote definition of the term -- their enterprises. If so, that falls under our conflict of interest guidelines -- short version: Bad Idea -- and I'd appreciate some pointers so they can be dealt with, or you can report them yourself here‎.

: I am not a Wiki editor operating under an alias and I'm not into tattling on others.

Don't make claims you're unable or unwilling to back up if you want to be taken seriously.

b) a misuse/misunderstanding of the term "promotion". Microsoft, The Rolling Stones, and Waldorf-Astoria Hotel are not articles "promoting" their subjects -- they certainly don't need the promotion -- they're articles which describe their existing notability, as per Wikipedia's various and sundry notability standards, including those for musicians, individuals, and companies and organizations. They're in effect, descriptive, not prescriptive (if I may be a little fast-and-loose with the definitions just so I can insert an English class grammar reference).

: I don't misunderstand anything.

For a Famous Writer you seem to understanding something fairly basic -- or maybe you're just dodging the point. Okay, to make it simpler: they're famous and your enterprises, well, aren't.

Anyone who lists a writer conference here is promoting it, plain and simple. They're not listing to add to the sum knowledge of the human race.

Plain and simply wrong. Bread Loaf Writers' Conference and the Iowa Writers' Workshop are well known and extraordinarily influential on the world of American Letters, which is why they get articles, because Wikipedia readers want to know about them.

: No, you are plain and simply wrong. You're ignoring the other lesser known conferences listing here and focusing on Algonkian exclusively. Also, point of fact, Bread Loaf has paid often and significantly to advertise in Poets and Writers Magazine, e.g. They DO advertise. Iowa, not sure, but I do agree these two are more venerable in *your* mind. I never did agree with everything Conroy said. To each his own.

First, read WP:INN again before using the term "exclusively" (not to mention being, you know, factually incorrect, given the trim job I did on List of writer's conferences). Second, BLWC's advertising off-wiki is irrelevant -- not to mention that I suspect Poets and Writers Magazine's rate sheet would contrdict your adverb "significantly", but that's equally irrelevant. Third, are you seriously suggesting your enterprise is, objectively, in the same league as Iowa and Bread Loaf? It's not in *my* mind alone, Bucky. Fourth, nice bit of name dropping.

I know, they tell me so.

So who are "they"? Are these actual "theys", or just a loose bit of projection?

: Again, not tattling to you.

Again, more empty talk. The phrase "Put up or shut up" comes to mind.

Anyway, the personal page is different with me. I consider it an honor to have my page on Wiki. I've added more references and links. Please let me know if you think this is sufficient.

': I've totally changed my mind. Delete my page or I will. This is demeaning. Besides, you'll counter no matter what I say cause you're determined. Could this be related to a BLOG run by an editor we both know who lives in NYC? I wonder.

Of course you consider it an honor: you wrote it. Who do you think you are, Gordon Lish? And I don't counter "no matter what [you] say", I counter what I consider misunderstandings, irrelevancies, and nonsense: not the same thing but you seem to be ensuring that there is a considerable overlap. And was there an actual point to your question?

As our conflict of interest guidelines have it, generally a Bad Idea. The general attitude among long-time editors is that if you're actually notable, someone else is going to [be] moved to write about you, making your every edit there subject to close scrutiny -- which is actually the moderate position, as there are others who would view it as an invitation to Shoot On Sight. Oh, and numbers of links and references doesn't really count, their quality does: see this and this.

:So in this Orwellian Wiki world I'm doomed to failure once put on the defensive to provide references. It's no win! And if I got someone else to do, you would just say SOCK, etc.! How clever and devious of you guys. Even WebdelSol.Com won't save me, not a good enough reference. That's a riot! So delete the page and stop this nonsense cat-mouse game. End it or I will. There is no dignity in this and I certainly don't need validation from you or anyone else in this organization. It's absurd. By the way, what is your REAL NAME, sir?

"Orwellian"? For a profesional writer you show little respect for the meaning of words. I hate self-references, but what part of a]n attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past (including the "unperson"--a person whose past existence is expunged) practiced by modern repressive governments (from the link) encompasses Wikipedia? It can't be the requirement to provide references, as this makes every HR department, grants agency, academic publication, and undergraduate English instructor "Orwellian". How clever and devious of, well, the entire scholarly, funding, and employment world to invoke the "provide references" ploy! And of course WebdelSol.Com won't save you, it's your website; i.e., not independent of you, hence a more extravagant version of "because I said so", only reliable as a source for what you say or believe, not for notability or as a substitute for third-party sources, any more than whitehouse.gov is a reliable source for anything other than documenting what George W. Bush believes (not what actually is).

As I point out in my talk page, I know of many other writers/poets/website people listed on Wiki and they're not being singled out

Let me call your bluff: send me the list and I'll take care of them. With one-and-a-half million articles, things get lost in the shuffle. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:No bluff. You're insinuating I'm lying? Regardless, amateur baiting, but I won't tattle for your benefit, mister.

You're insinuating I'm lying? Yes. Hence the use of the phrase "call your bluff". Which it was. Now I'll state it more directly: I believe you're not being truthful. Again, put up or shut up: you brought it up, you get to back it up. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns

Hello! You seemed quite upset, so I wished to respond to your concerns. I do apologize if you took any comments as a personal attack, as they were not intended as such.

If you believe that I've acted incorrectly, I would encourage you to express your concerns at the AfD debate. I certainly do not claim to be perfect or never to make an error, and if you believe I've made one here, please put your reasons down to be evaluated by those who participate in the discussion. A nomination for deletion does not mean an article will be deleted, and many articles nominated turn out to be kept.

My name listed is correct. While I prefer not to post my full name on-wiki, for anyone who comes across the page to see, I use it in email correspondence. (Actually, if you use the "e-mail user" link in my profile, my email address is my real name.)

As to my rationale for nominating for AfD, from looking at the sources, there just isn't enough verifiable information with which to write a biography of a person. That does not mean I doubt the veracity of anything which you have said, but we require that information in articles be verifiable to any person who looks at the article, and unfortunately, personal knowledge just isn't. It certainly seems that the website may meet notability guidelines-I wasn't really looking for that, so I can't express a certain opinion one way or the other, but it seems that NYT's "Top Ten" certainly would be likely to meet the "major award" criterion. However, a notable website does not necessarily mean that the webmaster is notable. It is sometimes a bit tricky! You may wish to have a look at the notability guidelines and the specific guidelines for biographies. Unfortunately, all the cited sources seem to state is that you exist, and started a relatively notable website.

If there is more source material available, I'd be happy to help you cite it! I don't have an easy time finding any online, but perhaps you could point to some offline material that gives more comprehensive biographical coverage? If so, I'd be happy to help you cite it within the article, and to withdraw the AfD nomination if appropriate. Offline material is perfectly alright as sources, provided that it meets the basic standards of non-triviality and reliability.

As to personal attacks-you posted that message before my response, and I don't think what you stated was a personal attack-while I may disagree, I believe your concerns are genuine ones. This is a collaborative project, and everyone has the write to h(is|er) input and to express concerns, including both you and I. (Though, you may wish to refrain from the use of terms such as "enjoys lying and gratuitous insults"-it takes quite a bit more then that to get me to take offense, but you certainly may find that other editors would take offense to such characterizations.) I realize that some of the ways this project works can be confusing and sometimes seem counterintuitive at the first look-but it's worked out pretty well so far. If you can point me to some sources which support the material in the article and help to establish notability, I'll be happy to help cite them. Seraphimblade 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Note

Todd, the P&W article was published in print. If I had all the time in the world I would copy it and mail it to you. Bottom line: if you read the Poets and Writers piece and don't think I meet Wiki guidelines, then it's bye bye me. Fine. The P&W is a bit dated, but it pretty well sums things up. I CANNOT DO BETTER than that. As for the New York Times piece, that appeared in print also. What the heck do you expect it to say? It gave me as much play as anyone else.

And your comments in the history section were inflammatory and some were false by any reasonable definition of the word. You know they are.

And again, you're NOT a writer or fan of literary work. If you were, you would see quite differently.

Cheers, M

February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Michael Neff. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _→AzaToth 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not blank the article. The article is already up for deletion, if you would like it to be deleted, you can add your support for this at the AfD page. Blanking of articles is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Seraphimblade 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity

Your concern with users' real names strikes me as rather disturbing. On Wikipedia, we have user accounts which track all of our contributions, which are all viewable in the public domain. As such, people acquire reputations through the contributions they make and their interactions with other users, just as they would in real life. You, by the way, are not acquiring a good one. So, since we are all here to edit Wikipedia, presumably, then that accountability system is really all that is necessary. Other than that, it is none of your business what anybody's name is. Anything tending toward legal or personal threats is taken very seriously here, and people who want to know everybody's real-life information can often seem to have that in mind. In summary, you don't need to know anybody's name. I don't know what you find so confusing or irritating about Wikipedia, but there is information about this place everywhere, and just because you don't understand things doesn't mean they are bad or somehow organized to spite you. You wrote a couple of articles that do not appear to fit, and you are taking that way too personally. When you start a new job, you can't start making demands and acting like you own the place. Why not take the same attitude here, and just try to learn from people who have been here a long time and seem to think it works just fine? Don't get pissed off, I'm trying to help you. --Tractorkingsfan 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:1-uomo-chat2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1-uomo-chat2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)