Revision as of 08:07, 3 June 2011 editMakeSense64 (talk | contribs)4,127 edits →improve← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:21, 3 June 2011 edit undoZachariel (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,655 edits →improve: presented points concerning Elwell's notability which seem to have been censored by past editorsNext edit → | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
: The spam issue is explained on your talk page ] -- Let me remind you that a core principle of WP is 'verifiability', not 'truth' ] . So it is not about me or you being happy (or not) about suggestions to improve this page. This page was tagged back in January by a registered WP editor , you can find him here ]. If the article does not get improved it may be deleted. Improving the article is not being done by inserting more external links at the bottom of the article. What is needed are ] ] (]) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC) | : The spam issue is explained on your talk page ] -- Let me remind you that a core principle of WP is 'verifiability', not 'truth' ] . So it is not about me or you being happy (or not) about suggestions to improve this page. This page was tagged back in January by a registered WP editor , you can find him here ]. If the article does not get improved it may be deleted. Improving the article is not being done by inserting more external links at the bottom of the article. What is needed are ] ] (]) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
The spam issue is not '''satisfactorily''' explained on my user page. You just mumbled some words there. | |||
Concerning Elwell's birth data which is of interest to many of the readers who are interested in Elwell as an astrologer, what is more reliable and easily verifyable than a link to a published interview where his birth chart is on display? | |||
Because this article was tagged by one editor doesn't mean it should be deleted. I just checked the history of this page and see that most of the reasons for Elwell's notability have been deleted. The famous ferry prediction has been deleted because some editor thought it was 'phantastical'. That person mistook their view of the truth for verifyability. It is a '''verifyable fact''' that Elwell gained extra notability because of the reports of that well known prediction which added to his reputation. The article can and should cover that from a neutral and unbiased point of view. The link I gave above gives all the details of this. I could put the details into the Misplaced Pages article but I would still have to link to that page. Would that suit you better? If not, what's your suggestion? | |||
Before anyone deletes this page note that the article has been heavily cut so that the reasons for Elwell's notability are not being shown. ] (]) 09:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:21, 3 June 2011
Biography Stub‑class | |||||||
|
Astrology Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Journalism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
I know Dennis's precise birth data, but as I'm not sure he would want it published, I'm witholding it. MayoPaul5 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
(citation needed): I shall try to find the origin of this assertion in next few weeks, but otherwise may have to delete POV part of the sentence. MayoPaul5 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That's too bad. Crud3w4re 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
improve
Removed some spam -- Serious concerns remain for this article, even though it was tagged months ago. -- Notability concerns because references are still very weak, since it only links to a single trivial mention in a non-notable book. WP:NRVE MakeSense64 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't spam man. The article says "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources". Added a link to a page which gives a personal interview with Dennis Elwell, originally published in Garry Phillipson's Astrology in the Year Zero. V. informative interview which shows why Dennis Elwell is one of the outstanding astrologers of his generation. Can't see how you are going to build up the info when you remove such relevant information. Suggest you check that link again and reinstate.Clooneymark (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Note the article also gives Elwell's birth chart, which is talked about, but not given, in the above discussion.Clooneymark (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like the link to the list of his published articles, fair enough; but it was one link and gave a lot of his work for anyone who wants to know more about his contributions. The personal interview link should definitely be re-instated. Also not happy about suggestion to drop this page because Dennis Elwell is very notable amongst astrologers. He gained a lot of press coverage for warning P&O ferries about an upcoming disaster on one of their ferries, recommending them to double-check their dafety procedures. Their letter to him saying they had nothing to worry about was in the post as the P&O ferry, Herald of Free Enterprise disaster occured. Lots of information and references to that on this page - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shipelwell.html
I won't add that link in case you think I'm spamming and get paid for linking to it or something, but someone should.
And MakeSense64, can you remove that 'spam tag' from my user page. I've never had any controversy here nor any warnings or even one single comment on my edits before now. No one even bothered to welcome me when I joined up but when I have added my bits of info it has alsways been good, informative info not spam.
I want to get an answer to my comments cos I'm pretty annoyed at being labelled a spammer just for trying to help. If someone else agrees that my link to his interview was out of place then I'll definitely leave this page well alone and won't add any more links of that nature. I think I should reinstate that interview link so please speak up and let me know if you don't want me to do that Clooneymark (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- The spam issue is explained on your talk page User_talk:Clooneymark -- Let me remind you that a core principle of WP is 'verifiability', not 'truth' WP:VERIFY . So it is not about me or you being happy (or not) about suggestions to improve this page. This page was tagged back in January by a registered WP editor , you can find him here User:Acabashi. If the article does not get improved it may be deleted. Improving the article is not being done by inserting more external links at the bottom of the article. What is needed are reliable sources MakeSense64 (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The spam issue is not satisfactorily explained on my user page. You just mumbled some words there.
Concerning Elwell's birth data which is of interest to many of the readers who are interested in Elwell as an astrologer, what is more reliable and easily verifyable than a link to a published interview where his birth chart is on display?
Because this article was tagged by one editor doesn't mean it should be deleted. I just checked the history of this page and see that most of the reasons for Elwell's notability have been deleted. The famous ferry prediction has been deleted because some editor thought it was 'phantastical'. That person mistook their view of the truth for verifyability. It is a verifyable fact that Elwell gained extra notability because of the reports of that well known prediction which added to his reputation. The article can and should cover that from a neutral and unbiased point of view. The link I gave above gives all the details of this. I could put the details into the Misplaced Pages article but I would still have to link to that page. Would that suit you better? If not, what's your suggestion?
Before anyone deletes this page note that the article has been heavily cut so that the reasons for Elwell's notability are not being shown. Clooneymark (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Categories: