108.14.110.72 (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)==Welcome== Hello, Omnibus170, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:[reply]

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. 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! Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFNAME is the official guide to how to have a reference be used more than once without having a seperate entry each time. (I still dont quite understand how to do it and muck it up a lot.) There is nothing wrong with having the same reference be used multiple times and appearing more than once in the reference list if you cannot figure out the instructions. There are people and bots who go around fixing them up to make them look prettier.Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the "edit" for this section Weeds_(TV_series)#Episodes, you can see how it works. The first time the source is used as a footnote, it is "named", and thereafter just the "name" (in this case <:ref name="TorrentFreak"/> - without the colon) needs to be used. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and actually, the coding is smart enough that the full citation doesnt need to be the first use, the full citation just needs to be somewhere in the article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the tip. I will study it tonight and then can apply 2nd references where they are needed. You have helped to make this all less scary. I just saved some substantial work. Would you go look at it please and see if you can take those nasty banners away, please. They really are awful. I have phone calls in for a few more refs and will keep working on it. I am grateful for your help is such a timely way as I learn how to do this right. Are we OK, now? ````

I have asked for a third party to take a look at the page. If there is no response in a few days/week (many US users may be on vacations) you can place a {:help me} tag here on your page with a request for someone to take a review. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnibus. I have restored your edit. I would recommend that you read the guideline page on conflict of interest - where a contributor has a connection with the subject of the article. COI editing is strongly discouraged. Also please have a read of what Wikipedia is not. It is not for hagiography, advocacy or promotion. The article aims for non-biased neutrality, not aiming towards the style of a "glowing resume". It is usually hard for personal friends family or colleagues of the subject of a biography to not want to present the subject in the best possible light. As a footnote, it is also usual to give page numbers in your citations. I would also recommend that you continue to discuss the progress of the article, its neutrality and referencing on the article talk page. Bst wishes Span (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will a senior editor please review this article for NPOV, quality references and encyclopedic style?

A few weeks ago, I noticed by chance that 2 warning labels had been placed on the article on Mary Cunningham Agee identifying it as sub-standard for lack of references and reading too much like a resume. I have invested 60 hours in response to this criticism and added about 60 quality references. Because I know Mrs. Agee on a professional basis, I have been especially careful to edit her article in an encyclopedic tone. She is an historic person as an advocate for women and activist in the woman’s movement. Her story is unique. It should be told well. Her article avoids sweeping statements about her mentoring of other women’s and pro-life organizations and dozens of initiatives over 25 years. Receiving distinctions is part and parcel of charitable work – especially with someone as talented and dedicated as Mrs. Agee. She has done SO much more that is even touched on in this article; to narrow it further is to fail to tell her story. She donated her salary for 20 years. That isn’t even in the article.

I have participated in several "talk" messages with two editors in a way that I believe is expected but no substantive review or collaboration has been forthcoming following the bulk of my work. I understand that the banners are helpful in improving quality but they are also demeaning and embarrassing to the person whose article is criticized in such a public way. It simply isn't fair to leave them there because there is no editor with the time or interest to collaborate in a give and take way.

I have read dozens of articles about colleagues of Mrs. Agee that do not have warning banners and are very similar in style and content. I will continue to collaborate on this article if anyone is interested in helping. I believe the article should be acceptable and am asking that the banners be removed now. Any advice on how to make the article even better would be appreciated. The banners are not needed as a motivator. I will check in every day and stay in the loop if there is something I can do to help. Thanks so much. Omnibus170 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one tag. I will look at the other issue shortly (if someone eise does not in the meantime.)--SPhilbrickT 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I took a quick glance through the article, and it looks hagiographic to me. However, it looks like it could be fixed. I'm constrained for time at the moment, but may have some time later. I will attempt to fix some things which I feel are obvious, and bring up some issues to the talk page where I think it is more or a gray area. If someone else jumps in during the meantime, good for them, if not and if I do not edit by tomorrow evening, poke me at my talk page, and I'll come back and work on it.--SPhilbrickT 20:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a list of 17 items I'd like to address. In some cases, I can make a change by myself, in other cases, you are in a better position to respond (e.g. when I ask if a particular reference cites the fact). other than the specific questions, your are not obligated to do anything; ut your feedback is appreciated, even if to argue that the present phrasing is OK. I have some other things to attend to, so may not get a chance to look at this until tomorrow.--SPhilbrickT 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibus, thank you for all your messages. Apologies for not being around to help with edits. I would still recommend you put up a COI notice on your talk page. I would also flag that as Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia (or aims to be) many articles include critical approaches and/or sections. We work collaboratively - anyone can edit and does. So if an editor wants to add a well sourced section of criticism of Cunningham's work it would stand (BLP policy not withstanding), just as it would with the Dalai Lama, Isaac Newton or anyone else - it's how we work. It's not anyone's job to 'defend' a subject. As I mentioned above, this can be hard for friends or family of a subject. I hope to do some work on the article this week. Many of my original points still stand. I would suggest imagining you are contributing to an encyclopaedic article on diabetes or newts and offer the same disinterested, neutral quality. Best wishes Span (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnibus. I think the article is getting there. Thank you for adding all the extra solid references - it definitely helps to reinforce the neutral objectivity of the piece. I realise it can be tricky when editors are moving at different paces and have various blocks of time to dedicate to working on articles. I would add that "there is no deadline" - we go on working to improve writing over time, trying to get it perfect right away often doesn't help. Other recent editors have echoed my earlier reservations and have helped to shape the tone. I would advise not getting into an exposition of the controversy at Bendix. The episode is well referenced by you if anyone wants to research further. It will begin an unneeded process of 'he said/she said" etc. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - this guideline maintains a respect for a subject's privacy, and protection from gossip etc. Thank you for all the work you have put in on the article. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I wonder if the reasoning and guidelines that other editors and I cite are clear - does it make sense to you? I am happy to discuss further if it helps. All best wishes Span (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WebReadyTNN-Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to leave out text that tends in any way to be promotional rather than informational. I have selectively reinstalled text that is factual. Ms. Agee is making a career change - this creates facts that need to be expressed.

As background: She is the founder of the Nurturing Network, the CEO of Semper Charitable Foundation and the CEO of a wine business. This is what she does - all factual - and in my opinion should be included.

Her Board activity has changed and therefore needs to change on Wikipedia.

She is no longer the CEO of the Nurturing Network which is in the process of concluding its operation as a charitable organization and as such the verb tense of its service changes i.e. has served vs currently serving.

I see no reason that her divorce must be included in her story and so removed this mention again.

I removed once again the use of the adjective "pro-life" in describing the Culture of Life Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center. It is my view that the administrators of those programs should say whether or not they are pro-life, not me.

I would sincerely ask that you consider the above entries on their merit and not simply revert them all in a single move.

I would like to ask for your advice on the following changes which I did not revert:

1. Why is it promotional to mention the title of one of Ms. Agee's books, "Compassion in Action" in the body of the text but not mention the title of her more prominent book, "Powerplay" by name?

2. In the Awards section, I mentioned three new instances of recognition - all with references - that you removed. Is the problem mentioning three instead of one or two that makes the entries seem promotional instead of factual. Of the three, the HBS Award is really big deal. Only 100 women were given this honor on the 50h anniversary of admitting women. So I would request that I be allowed to be include it along with its reference.

3. Similarly, to have her writing included in any Anthology of Women Activists that includes the likes of Abagail Adams, Heller Keller, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Rodham Clinton to name just a few - is a distinguished recognition. It is factual, documented and important. I respectfully request your OK to include it.

4. The reference to Celebration of Women is less significant. If removing one of the three is necessary in your view, this would be the one to leave out.

5. Being included in the Wine Women of Napa Valley publication is an honor, but it seems more appropriate to me to include mention in the opening section where I mention Ms. Agee's winemaking role. This is a new career emphasis - and as such is timely information. It is well documented and I ask your permission to include it.

I look forward to receiving your advice and thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.Omnibus170 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibus: This entire entry is beginning to look like a job application. I recommend starting this entry from scratch with Agee's actual accomplishments and historical notations starting with Bendix. For instance, minor awards are not worthy of inclusion (see: resume padding). Wine Women of Napa Valley? Where does that rise to the level of national recognition? More than half your entries do not warrant inclusion in the entry of a public figure. I notice you also removed the marriage reference. Stop doing that. Her public relationship and eventual marriage to Bill Agee is a significant part of her national notoriety, whether you like it or not, and is going to always be part of Wikipedia. 108.14.110.72 (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]