Katydude
|
A tag has been placed on Grand Lakes, 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 that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and 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 Grand Lakes 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 independent 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. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Henry Paulson
editHi Katy, I have deleted you addition to Mr. Paulson's page.[1] The reason is that the articles you cite do not make the specific comments that you are trying to make. For example, neither of the sources say that "Paulson has also faced criticism for his past testimony" nor that his "lobbying for the repealment of the Net capital rule which is often cited as one of the main reasons for precipitating the current liquidity crisis in the markets." etc. On Wikipedia all edits should be WP:Verifiable and carefully sourced. And this is essential when making edits in an article about a living person, where we have very strict rules about what can and cannot be included WP:BLP. I realize that this is probably frustrating, but it is important to read our policies carefully and comply with them. Please let me know if I can help in any way. --Slp1 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Katy, I have deleted your section once again. I realize that you are trying, but blogs are not reliable sources in our terms, nor is Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS. The IHT and NYT article are actually the same article, and neither of them contain the allegations you are including in exactly the way that you have written. And yes, I did read all of them very carefully. I think you could use the IHT/NYT to say something useful about the background for the current situation, but you would have to source it exactly to what is written in the article, per WP:SYNTH. BTW we try to avoid criticism sections. If you want to pursue this, why don't you suggest something on the talkpage of the article and we can work on it there. --Slp1 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again Katy. As I said above, we certainly can use IHT/NYT article to say something about Paulson's involvement. The Senate testimony is more delicate as it is what we call an primary source, and while it can be used, it has to be used with great caution here (see WP:PRIMARY for details of how we need to mostly rely on secondary sources such as newspapers/books etc. But even with the newspaper article you can't do state more than the article says. For example, the article says that Paulson was involved in a meeting about getting the repeal of the Net capital rule and that this repeal has been seen as an important factor in the financial crisis. No problem saying that at all. But nowhere in the article does it say that he has been criticised for this testimony, nor for that before the Senate. Nowhere in the article does it say that the repeal of the [Net capital rule]] has 'often' been cited as a main reason for the market fall. Nowhere in the article does it mention anything about the leverage ratios being "12-1 to as much as 40-1". Nowhere does it mention that the lack of voluntary oversight has been "widely criticized". I don't doubt that much of your paragraph is true and that you could source of the above statements to reliable sources. But we are not allowed to pull pieces of information (even true pieces of information) together from sources to prove a point. See WP:SYNT. And most especially, since this is an article about Henry Paulson, we cannot pull together unpleasant facts to make him look bad.[2] And per our policies here, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth WP:V, so yes, "the truth has to be told elsewhere" if necessary. --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Katy. Thanks for your message. I have actually gone ahead and added one of the sentences you proposed to the article.[3] The rest seemed fine but was a bit redundant given that there was already some stuff about the repeal etc in the article, cited to the same NYT piece. So hopefully that works for you. Thanks for understanding and being willing to learn the complex rules around here!! BTW, it isn't considered really good form to delete messages (even your own messages) from another person's talkpage without discussing or explaining why. It makes it harder for people to follow the conversations, I guess. I'm not sure why you wanted to delete one of your messages, but if you have a good reason, it won't be a problem for me or you to do it. Just let me know. Once again thanks and good luck here at WP. Let me know if I can help in the future.--Slp1 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again Katy. As I said above, we certainly can use IHT/NYT article to say something about Paulson's involvement. The Senate testimony is more delicate as it is what we call an primary source, and while it can be used, it has to be used with great caution here (see WP:PRIMARY for details of how we need to mostly rely on secondary sources such as newspapers/books etc. But even with the newspaper article you can't do state more than the article says. For example, the article says that Paulson was involved in a meeting about getting the repeal of the Net capital rule and that this repeal has been seen as an important factor in the financial crisis. No problem saying that at all. But nowhere in the article does it say that he has been criticised for this testimony, nor for that before the Senate. Nowhere in the article does it say that the repeal of the [Net capital rule]] has 'often' been cited as a main reason for the market fall. Nowhere in the article does it mention anything about the leverage ratios being "12-1 to as much as 40-1". Nowhere does it mention that the lack of voluntary oversight has been "widely criticized". I don't doubt that much of your paragraph is true and that you could source of the above statements to reliable sources. But we are not allowed to pull pieces of information (even true pieces of information) together from sources to prove a point. See WP:SYNT. And most especially, since this is an article about Henry Paulson, we cannot pull together unpleasant facts to make him look bad.[2] And per our policies here, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth WP:V, so yes, "the truth has to be told elsewhere" if necessary. --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Katy, thanks for your message and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Good work looking for the Eagle Scout reference. But I am a bit puzzled why, since there are already two good references for him being an Eagle Scout. The reference you gave is a website, and I am not sure about the editorial oversight. Saying that corrections can be sent in suggests that we have to be a bit careful with it. I always like to aim for the best quality resources available. In this case, that he is an Eagle Scout is mentioned as a chapter in this book here [4] that is referenced in the article already.--Slp1 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
File:Grandlakes.jpg listed for deletion
editA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grandlakes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
