User talk:Chelydra

Breslin Realty etc.

Thanks. For more information on how speedy deletion works, see Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Some of the criteria for speedy deletion can be rather vague, especially the "person... that does not assert... importance" one (A7). I felt that Wilbur Breslin did assert the subject's importance, so I removed the tag.

Also, welcome to Wikipedia! You might find some of the links at Wikipedia:Questions useful. If you have further questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 14:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to JYaolkowski, and a note on what I'm putting together

Many thanks to J.Y. for a timely intervention in the deletion process. Readers may have noticed a growing set of interconnected articles - Urban Development Corporation additions, Newsday additions, Robert M. Johnson, some additions to the DDT, Earth Day and Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, and perhaps a few more I've forgotten, all of which relate to the saga of "the developers vs the defenders" of the Long Island Island environment, several zeroing in a period of particular interest in 1989-1991. During that time, a rather extraordinary coalition of "business" (developers) and "labor" (mostly mob-dominated hardhat construction union locals) was formed under the guidance of the Howard J. Rubenstein Associates PR agency and the then-publisher of Newsday, Robert M. Johnson, with some possibly-reluctant participation by the Long Island Association and other business lobbies, as well as then-Governor Mario Cuomo. The significance of this, I feel, is that the story forms a remarkable case history of how self-appointed power elites try to make things happen against the will of a majority of citizens (the majority of the sector that's aware of what's going on, that is), and without their consent. The most alarming sub-plots, in which this elite went all-out to smash through the barriers imposed by legality and democracy, are scattered around in various articles. If anyone has any suggestions for how to consolidate all this, for the sake of coherence and clutter-avoidance, I'd be happy to consent, cooperate, or have a go at it myself. Please put suggestions here. Thanks - Chelydra

Hello - I'd love to learn more about the project you're proposing. In particular, I'm interested in a better history of the Shoreham opposition, and noticed you had contributed quite a bit. Any chance you'd be willing to correspond by email? Thanks - Natty3umppo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natty3umppo (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Graphic Artists Guild

An article that you have been involved in editing, Graphic Artists Guild, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphic Artists Guild. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Norwaystudent (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon

Hi Chelydra, Glad to see you have an interest in National Lampoon. I was just looking at your paragraph which currently reads, "Politically, the magazine foreshadowed the rightward drift of the disillusioned baby boom generation. For example, Joe Schenkman employed an iconoclastic wit honed in the underground press in a cartoon assault on Ralph Nader scripted by P. J. O'Rourke — a prototype for later, less inspired, satires of political correctness." It seems to me that the paragraph needs some editing for NPOV, and I also feel it might need a lot more surgery than that. Before I have at it, can I ask, do you have any published references to back up the various points you made in that paragraph? And although I know early Lampoon pretty well, I have to say I have never even heard of Joe Schenkman. I think we might need to put his mention a lot further down in the piece, if at all... I could not find any online references at all to his Lampoon work, can you? Thanks. If I don't hear from you in a few days I may go ahead and make my own changes, Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Chelydra. It wasn't until just now I found your reply to me, which had somehow ended up inside a fancy box of links on my user page! Here it is:"Dear Invertzoo, I couldn't find any way to contact you in response to your message, so here's this (which you should feel free to erase after reading, so it doesn't clutter up your nice page here). In response to your critique of the National Lampoon page: Joe Schenkman, from about 1968 to about 1983, was pretty well-known as a cartoonist, first at Rat Subterranean News, then as part of the underground comics scene, and later at the Lampoon. I think he worked with P.J. O'Rourke on a couple of other stories in the Lampoon, aside from the one I mentioned, and for three or four years I think his work was in just about every issue (generally a page or two in the comics section). In the mid-1980's he took over a publishing company founded by his uncle Alfred Schenkman, and moved on from the cartooning world. Schenkman was never a household name — probably only R. Crumb was that — but he had a following. As for my addition to the Lampoon page: I did think it was significant that someone who started out at Rat, the most dangerously political of all the underground newspapers, did what was probably his best work collaborating with O'Rourke, at a time when O'Rourke was emerging as the smartest and funniest of the media personalities of the resurgent Right — politically (although not intellectually or culturally) fairly similar to Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, et al. The Lampoon was funny at a time when the left had (once again) lost its sense of humor — it was symptomatic of the flow of America's mental and emotional energy from left to right. Of course the Lampoon never consciously set out to proclaim any kind of Right-wing agenda; it just happened. But it was no less significant for that. And it should be mentioned in the Lampoon article. I thought the use of Schenkman as an example saved this from being merely a vague assertion." So anyway, let me read it properly, and get back to you. Invertzoo (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing Chelydra: do you mean that Schenkman was at Lampoon in the early 80s? Or when? Invertzoo (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, me again. I see you are not a very active user, and therefore chances are that you probably don't know the ropes very well yet. The main thing about that part you wrote is, that unless you can back it up with a citation, it appears to be what Wikipedia calls original research. Read through the guideline at: [1]. What you expressed is also more or less an opinion. This overall kind of writing would be perfectly fine for a review or an essay, but it is not really suitable for an encyclopedia, and that's what Wikipedia is aiming to be, an encyclopedia. Another very important point is that anything that someone might disagree with has to be "verifiable", see the guideline [2]. Things that don't meet these guidelines are fair game to be changed radically or even deleted. Just being polite so you know what is going on if your sentences disappear or get moved or are radically changed. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your short note Chelydra. Just so as I know, can you tell me just roughly from when to when he was on the masthead? Thanks again, best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Yes, you got the place right for your message this time, on the discussion page/talk page of my user page, the only thing is, it helps (when you start a new "conversation") to give it a heading so it doesn't look like it is just part of the previous message on the page. Thanks for all the info, I appreciate it. I had thought it must have been during the 80s. I will save the info onto the talk page of the Lampoon article and then I will add it in when there is a suitable place for it to go in the article. Invertzoo (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Chelydra! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 69 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Wilbur Breslin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wilbur Breslin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wilbur Breslin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again...

Just a note to tell anyone interested (if anyone is, which seems unlikely) that Chelydra is now identified here as Chelydra99. This is only because of glitches in logging in after a long delay. Despite this page, there was "no record" of any user called Chelydra, but logging in or obtaining a new password was prohibited because the name was already in use! Chelydra99 had also come up in a name-search as both "no record" and "name already in use" but then the password I recalled vaguely from 10 years ago brought it to life as a new account. So here we are. Not a very interesting tale, but it'll have to do.Chelydra99 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]