This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Something weird is going on here. Over the past weeks I have created perhaps half a dozen bio articles on several Austrian scientists, researchers, and science popularizers (see my user page). All went unchallenged, although most of the references I cited were in German, not available online, and in some cases perhaps even obscure to the English speaking world. Today I created this page, mostly to resolve confusion with Hermann Mucke (astronomer) and I find that within minutes User:Chzz broke out all the inline references to the most reputed all-English peer review journals, and then proceeded to remove entire sections as "unreferenced." These were the exact references that supported some of the cases I made here, and the article was not in any way final. The guy I bioed here is, among other positions, Patent Editor at Current Opinions in Investigational Drugs, a ThomsonReuters journal (go here and click on the "Editorial Board" tab) and there are other references I have not at hand yet but could insert next week. Consider your actions please, please, and apply good faith. Glst2 ( talk)
The incoming links to this article have alerted me to discussions at User talk:Intesvensk#Question about PROD and User talk:Chzz/Archive 10#Hermann Mucke (bioscientist). I'm putting these on the article discussion page where they belong. - (2 threads of discussion inserted below) Glst2 ( talk) 09:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm doing some recent changes patrolling and have come across the article Hermann Mucke (bioscientist). I'm not sure whether it satisfies WP:ACADEMIC or not and whether to PROD it or not (or even speedy delete it). All the references seem to be links to articles he's written or links to lists of those articles. Any suggestions gladly received. ɪntə svɛnsk 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. We cross paths a lot on helpmes, help desk, etc. and I wish I had dropped by before now just to say hello. I only have a moment as I am going to the movies and must leave but I don't know that removing all the inline citations to primary sources in Hermann Mucke (bioscientist) is the right course. These are not self-published sources but primary sources which have been (apparently) published in peer reviewed journals. As noted at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them...." I haven't given this a lot of thought nor have I studied the article closely to see if it makes interpretive claims using them, but I did want to drop a quick message before it fell out the other side of my head (and note that I won't be able to respond to any reply until many hours from now). Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
(2 copied user talk threads end here)
I note that neither User:Intesvensk nor User:Chzz could be bothered to raise the subject here or on my user talk page, perhaps just to ask:hi, there might be an issue here, are you planning to add more in support of your emergent article? That would have amounted to something known as ***style*** in earlier, old-fashioned times. But I see I am going to loose here: contributing constructively takes as much aches with electrons as with penstrokes; while deleting has become so quick and convenient in the digital world. Glst2 ( talk) 09:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Something weird is going on here. Over the past weeks I have created perhaps half a dozen bio articles on several Austrian scientists, researchers, and science popularizers (see my user page). All went unchallenged, although most of the references I cited were in German, not available online, and in some cases perhaps even obscure to the English speaking world. Today I created this page, mostly to resolve confusion with Hermann Mucke (astronomer) and I find that within minutes User:Chzz broke out all the inline references to the most reputed all-English peer review journals, and then proceeded to remove entire sections as "unreferenced." These were the exact references that supported some of the cases I made here, and the article was not in any way final. The guy I bioed here is, among other positions, Patent Editor at Current Opinions in Investigational Drugs, a ThomsonReuters journal (go here and click on the "Editorial Board" tab) and there are other references I have not at hand yet but could insert next week. Consider your actions please, please, and apply good faith. Glst2 ( talk)
The incoming links to this article have alerted me to discussions at User talk:Intesvensk#Question about PROD and User talk:Chzz/Archive 10#Hermann Mucke (bioscientist). I'm putting these on the article discussion page where they belong. - (2 threads of discussion inserted below) Glst2 ( talk) 09:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm doing some recent changes patrolling and have come across the article Hermann Mucke (bioscientist). I'm not sure whether it satisfies WP:ACADEMIC or not and whether to PROD it or not (or even speedy delete it). All the references seem to be links to articles he's written or links to lists of those articles. Any suggestions gladly received. ɪntə svɛnsk 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. We cross paths a lot on helpmes, help desk, etc. and I wish I had dropped by before now just to say hello. I only have a moment as I am going to the movies and must leave but I don't know that removing all the inline citations to primary sources in Hermann Mucke (bioscientist) is the right course. These are not self-published sources but primary sources which have been (apparently) published in peer reviewed journals. As noted at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them...." I haven't given this a lot of thought nor have I studied the article closely to see if it makes interpretive claims using them, but I did want to drop a quick message before it fell out the other side of my head (and note that I won't be able to respond to any reply until many hours from now). Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
(2 copied user talk threads end here)
I note that neither User:Intesvensk nor User:Chzz could be bothered to raise the subject here or on my user talk page, perhaps just to ask:hi, there might be an issue here, are you planning to add more in support of your emergent article? That would have amounted to something known as ***style*** in earlier, old-fashioned times. But I see I am going to loose here: contributing constructively takes as much aches with electrons as with penstrokes; while deleting has become so quick and convenient in the digital world. Glst2 ( talk) 09:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)