User talk:Nolamgm

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. 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! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death Row Inmates

If the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Thacker are any indication, I suspect you have nothing to fear about your articles being deleted.

However, allow me to suggest that, before you go forward with adding any new articles to the database, you first go back over your old articles and attempt to bring them into congruence with WP:STYLE. As the articles currently stand, they read like true-crime stories rather than encyclopedia entries. I'll have a go at Dobie Gillis Williams and attempt to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

On an unrelated note, I am also a Louisiana native (currently living in central Virginia), and lived in Westwego for a year and a half. Welcome to Wikipedia. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see what you mean in regards to the Dobie Gillis Williams article. The Louisiana Supreme Court appellant opinion that I used to create this article was verbose even by lawyer standards. (Again this is a work of the gov’t and thus not subject to copyright). I would be happy to take any input as to style as to wikify it, however I would prefer to keep as much as the detail as to the crime as possible unless this violates some wiki rule. I have already looked at what John Broughton did to the article and it seemed to clean it up nicely. And I have been trying to come up with better headings then I used in my earlier articles.

My only problem with the AfD process is that there seems to be a group on WP that spends more time trying to delete articles then creating them. I also feel that the opposition to the articles on executed inmates has more to do with some individuals’ pro-death penalty/ anti-crime feelings then anything else. Despite the horrible crimes committed by these people, they are still notable and should be remembered as the debate about the death penalty continues in our society. Nolamgm 17:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few hard, fast rules that say "You can't use this type of phrasing in an article." However, there are numerous guidelines. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (or, at least, attempts to be one). So the articles should read like something you'd see in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. They should be dispassionate, non-sensationalistic, and as neutral in tone as can be managed. I have finished my edits of Dobie Gillis Williams, and hopefully you will find them satisfactory. Please take a look and feel free to let me know what you think.

As for AfD, it is true that people often spend more time deleting articles than creating them. This is because creating a brand new article from scratch is relatively difficult compare to nominating articles for AfD and/or particpating in AfD discussions. If I want to create a new article from scratch, I have to be reasonably well-versed in the topic of the article. Whereas I require no special expertise in either movie theaters nor the state of Vermont to have an opinion on whether Roxy Cinema should be included in Wikipedia.

Also, the amount of new articles that may be usefully created within Wikipedia is a small, finite number for most individual editors, while the number of articles which may be usefully deleted from Wikipedia is essentially infinite. While I wouldn't call myself an "expert" on beer, I am a very well-informed layman on the subject. I could create articles on beer, brewing, and homebrewing. However, those articles were created long before I arrived. Meanwhile, hundreds of bogus articles are created every day. And of those, only a comparative handful actually get nominated for AfD or speedy deleted outright. A non-trivial percentage of bogus articles get missed by human eyes and by the bots who patrol the list of recent changes, and find their way into Wikipedia, where they may lurk for months before being discovered.

Finally, if someone makes a bad faith nomination of an article because of their own personal feelings on the subject, rather than on the suitability or insuitability of the article for Wikipedia based upon Wikipedia's deletion criteria, that fact will almost always be uncovered in the 5-6 days that the AfD discussion lasts. Articles nominated in bad faith rarely get deleted. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 20:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

Don't take it personally when an article you've created is nominated for AfD. The AfD discussions are not meant to be up/down voting procedures where the decision goes to whichever viewpoint ekes out a simple majority of votes. This is why the name of the page was changed a few months ago from "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion". Ideally, an AfD nomination will prompt a discussion which will eventually arrive at some sort of large agreement. What qualifies as a "large agreement" is subject to some debate. Some folks feel that unanimity or near-unanimity of opinion is needed for "consensus" to be claimed. Other folks feel that a mere supermajority (say, 75% of the "votes", to pick one standard used by many AfD closers) is sufficient. In addition, most folks who close AfD discussions endorse ignoring spurious reasoning when counting the "votes". e.g. If you vote "keep, because I don't like the nominator," well, that's a bogus vote and will almost certainly be ignored in the final analysis by anybody who closes AfD discussions.

If a "large agreement" isn't reached by the discussion, the debate is closed as "No consensus." And "No consensus" results default to "keep" status. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your First RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

Nolamgm:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. I confess I was surprised to see you voting in my RFA, and I remain curious as to how you discovered my RFA in the first place. However you ran across it, you supported me, and thanks to you and others, I am now an admin. I will strive to live up to your expectations.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Wikipedia users

Hi, my name is Cory, and I'm working on a story for the Advocate about people in Louisiana who create and maintain Wikipedia pages, particularly ones about the area and its inhabitants. If you would be willing to participate in an interview for it, could you reply by e-mail?

Thanks, Cory

AfD nomination of Dalton Prejean

I have nominated Dalton Prejean, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalton Prejean. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

An article of yours is in AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Brown, Jr.. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments there. We obviously approach this differently, but perhaps you should consider it from the viewpoint that the appeals and protests make it notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of those who have been judicially executed

FYI, I've started an Rfc in Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts). I think that's probably a better place to discuss the issue than the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Brown, Jr. article. Location (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree. That's why I did the same thing a little earlier but not in the proper format. We now have three competing Rfcs on the same issue in the same space. I am just going to merge mine into yours. Thanks. Nolamgm (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSU

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]