User talk:Nancy Hunter

Welcome!

Hello, Nancy Hunter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Katr67 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Librarian stuff

Hi, I see you're a librarian and aware of the ongoing debate about librarians adding external links to their university's collections. I'm not sure if you've seen this essay by User:Beetstra: User:Beetstra/Archivists, but I thought it would point it out. I saw you edited Volga Germans, of which I am one, or half anyway, and saw you were new, in case you were wondering why I welcomed you :) So are librarians burning up librarian chat rooms discussing this issue? How did you hear about it? Don't worry, I'm sympathetic to both sides--I'm thinking of getting an MLIS myself--Wikipedia would make a great subject for a thesis project! Katr67 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. In a nutshell, adding links but not content is just generally frowned upon, no matter who is doing the adding. See: User:Katr67/FAQ/EL/Temp for some links to the relevent policies and guidelines. I think what we are mostly afraid of is the "slipperly slope" phenomenon, where if we let librarians "spam" links to their collections, it will open up a whole raft of other folks saying, "why can't I add my link too?" Personally, I think you're doing fine so far. I've noticed that some librarians we've contacted get awfully defensive about the issues we're bringing up, which is too bad, because we're all on the side of more information=good. It just becomes a problem when there is an obvious COI and people are getting paid to add links to Wikipedia (see the related article here), and don't take the time to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia "culture" if you will. (I'm sure it's also confusing to learn that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has so goshdarned many rules.) I'd urge you to drop a note on Beetstra's talk page or at least link to the note on my talk page. He's got a zero tolerance policy on spam, but is very interested in finding a compromise solution for the type of links librarians and archivists like to add to Wikipedia. Getting things to change around here is kind of like turning a battleship (the politics/sausage analogy works here too) but things do change eventually and usually for the better. I hope that helps! And, yes there are a lot of us German Russians around, I've noticed. :) I'm also "Pennsylvania Dutch", but surprisingly no "plain old German" in my ancestry as far as I know. Happy editing! Katr67 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ISTeC (The Information Science & Technology Center at Colorado State University)

A tag has been placed on ISTeC (The Information Science & Technology Center at Colorado State University), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for the CSD is twofold. 1) WP:Notability I do not believe the center meets this standard. (Although you could certainly provide links to show otherwise). 2) copyright violations. It is fairly apparent that quite a bit of the content was copied or paraphrased from the link I put into the CSD. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be a copyright violation. Much of it was copied directly from [1]. We can use the CSU site for information, but cannot copy from it.Wikfr (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I had to delete the page; the material is not in the public domain, but you are welcome to rewrite it. But before you do, it is relatively rare that individual centers of this sort within universities are actually considered suitable for independent articles in Wikipedia . It might be better to add a single brief paragraph to the article on the university.

A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party ;independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.

It also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't list routine information about the various specific lecture series and the like programs that will be of interest only to people at the unviersity or the surrounding community. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]