User talk:Daniel Shanefield

Shanefield (disambiguation)[edit]

Why do you have a redundant disambiguation page link at the top of your autobiographical article? There are no other Shanefields mentioned in Wikipedia with which you can become confused. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: I'm sorry if I broke any rules. I was just trying to fix it so people searching for "shanefield," without the middle initial and its dot ("J."), could find my biography. At present, they can't, unless they search for the whole bloody shmear, dot and all. (Some of my former students have searched for my biog but couldn't find it.)

If you can fix this, please do it.

Dan Shanefield, Apr.12

What you need is a Wikipedia:Redirect. Other editors have gone ahead and put these in place for you. Also, you don't need to sign your edit summaries, they're always attributed to your user name as long as you're logged in. See the page history of your biography here. But thanks for remembering to use edit summaries! They're very helpful.

Since you appear to be fairly new, I'm going to post you a welcome greeting--it has helpful links and stuff. Also, since there's already an article about you, you might want to read WP:AUTO to avoid any misunderstandings.:

Welcome!

Hello, Daniel Shanefield, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NickelShoe (Talk) 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this biog be taken off "tagged" status and made a regular article.[edit]

I did not initiate this biography --- someone else did, about 2 years ago. I simply added some information, and I don't see anything unethical about that. Plenty of readers are looking for such info.

Regarding "verification," I don't know how to establish that, without going to a paper ("print") library. However, you editors could search amazon.com for shanefield and find the two textbooks that I wrote, one of which has a lot about my innovations in the field of ceramic "tape casting." If you search scholar.google.com for d. J. shanefield, you'll find several hundred items that I wrote in professional journals, and that other people wrote about my work.

Regarding the hi-fi audio "double-blind" test, which I originated, you can visit http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pictures.htm and go down to my picture, and see what their editors recorded there. I started that test in the audio field, defended it, and now it's used all over the world.

You could also go to patents.google.com and search for me, and find oodles to entries about my 16 U.S. patents and other people's usage of them, but that's an awkward sort of search.

This seems "notable" to me. I guess you can claim this is self-promotion, but I claim it's self-defense.

Respectfully (I think wikipedia is wonderful!), Dan Shanefield

I removed the "prod" (PROposed Deletion) tag as an article should be tagged this way only once, and it was removed a year ago by DGG, one of the very most respected Wikipedians. I think it is unlikely that the article would be deleted, and I deplore any annoyances you have suffered due to misapplied and misquoted policies. Much of the content removed was clearly encyclopedic and appropriate, and I restored everything I could find. Some things need cites, but some are cited already, some not in an immediately obvious or standard manner. Anyone can remove most tags.. It's usually best to do so slowly, improving the article if their suggestions make sense, and discussing the matter at the talk page. If you think something is tagged inappropriately and the tagger does not discuss the matter in a reasonable time, just remove it. The newsrelease and notability tags I left on the article for now should come off soon after minimal work, the "COI" a little later, after someone checks the article a bit more for neutrality. Your contributions look quite OK to me, maybe one or two aren't the usual sort of info for a wiki article, but need more looking into to be sure. Regards,John Z (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Z, et al. Thanks for your editing efforts. dansh (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Dan Shanefield[reply]

Nomination of Daniel J. Shanefield for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel J. Shanefield is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Shanefield until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pburka (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]