User talk:John de Norrona

Dear John de Norrona, hi. I have seen you hsve written a new article on Arno Tausch. I am a bit worried that the style of the article and its length will lead to it being proposed for deletion again. On English wikipedia thre are many who might wish to delete such articles. A far shorter and less personal or promotional one might have more chance of surviving. I am just letting you know in case you would like to trim it down or rather face the higher risk of arguing in an Afd. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)) PS: I will not be doing anything to push for its deletion and this is just a heads up not in anyway a threat.

John de Norrona, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi John de Norrona! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Arno Tausch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arno Tausch 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/Arno Tausch (3rd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Gaba ^(talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Some advice on Arno Tausch

Hi John, I notice that you are apparently an admirer of Tausch, but perhaps you're not an academic yourself. I say that because the way the article on him currently stands, you are not really doing him any favor. It's not just the fact that it starts looking like a bad CV. I say "bad", because it contains stuff that no academic would ever put in his CV, such as "Scientific journals – Debates and reviews of his works" or "Sources (journals) (articles, debating Tausch's contributions)". Whatever the case may be, this is an encyclopedia, not a website to post a CV. What you should try to do is to write a biography that is more like the "story of his life", starting with where he was born through his education and career (provided, of course, that there are reliable sources for these things. Other issues are the lavish praise that the article heaps on him. All that "founder in Europe" stuff and the claims that he is an important figure in not only political science, but also liberation theology, does not really square with the fact that this only barely made it past our notability guidelines at the last AfD. Long lists of publications are also very frowned upon, better to just give the 5 most important ones. In general, a more neutrally and modestly worded article is more encyclopedic and also doesn't suggest that this is a crank with grandeur delusions. The AfD was closed "keep", so there is enough to establish notability and make a solid article without making this guy look silly. It the sources listed under "debating Tausch's contributions" really do that, than those should be a great starting point for describing Tausch' work and career and his impact on the field. Have a look at some B-class or "GA" of "FA" class biographies to see good examples of what a bio can look like. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Also on Arno Tausch

I see also that you have changed the section of the article on the ACRPS completely to make it more about Arno Tausch. I understand how the weighted averages, as does the Center itself, but they intentionally avoided using weighted averages. Nor can we deny that the journal in which Tausch's paper is published is an organ of the Herzliya Institute, itself an Israeli military think tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abedwayyad (talk • contribs) 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Answer to user Abedwayyad

Regarding the debate of the article http://www.gloria-center.org/author/arno-tausch/ in the article on the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. Let's assume for reasons of calm and politiness that the deletion of mentioning of the Tausch article in the present Wikipedia article is not vandalism, but political passion by a Wikipedia user. Political passion is always a bad companion for a thoughtful analysis. There is no such thing as a "Herzliya" Institute, but only a "Gloria Center", and the allegation that this is a "Israeli military think tank" is not substantiated in any form; and at any rate: so what? I suspect that your knowedge of the center is still limited, judging by the erroneous mentioning of their very name in the first place. Good global think tanks, like the Rand Corporation, the Hudson Institute, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the IMEMO Institute in Moscow, the Instituto Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil (my favorite one) or - for that matter - the ACRPS - all have relationships with governments, and many of them with the security agencies of these governments, and I hasten to add, the world would be much more peaceful and better, if only the political classes were to listen more to their expertise. Passionate follower as you are of what you term the "Palestinian cause" you should start to read, for example the Wikipedia article on Martin van Creveld, and you will realize how useful and good the analyses of researchers from think tanks can be, even in the passionate atmosphere of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. As I said in a comment to you, Mr. Abedwayyad, before: the region can learn a lot from the rational governance East and West acquired during the time of the Cold War, and the regular reading of the materials, produced by the think tanks of the other side, was part and parcel of that governance. As far as the entry on Tausch in the ACRPS is concerned, it was you who began the Tausch debate in the first place; since you now deleted the mentioning of the Tausch article altogether, I say: better no entry on that subject than a wrong entry. Of course, any 100 class of social survey research will teach you that if you have a survey of the usage of red shirts on Mondays, and two countries - one with 90 million inhabitants (country A), the other with 10 million inhabitants (country B), and in country A 50% are wearing a red shirt on Monday, while in country B only 10% are wearing a red shirt on Monday, it would be wrong to assume that in both countries 30% (the simple average of the two survey results) of the people wear a red shirt on Mondays, since in country A 45 million wear a red shirt on Monday, and in country B 1 million wear a red shirt on Monday, which makes 46 million people in both countries, i.e. 46%. The ACRPS however exactly provides only averages of the survey results, WITHOUT population weighting: The March 2012 of the Arab Opinion Index edition says on page 7 in reference to Figure 1 on page 8 quite clearly enough that 73% of the citizens of the Arab countries are satisfied or very satisfied with their lives. What Tausch did in his article is only to provide the population weighted results, and also to develop UNDP type indices from the ACRPS results. Where Tausch agreed in the interpretation with the ACRPS was that the desire for democracy in the region is enormous, but where he disagrees is that (given the weight of the Egyptian results) mass support for secular, democratic civil societies is weaker than suggested by the ACPRS, when you once introduce population weights. This certainly is a valid point, and several ACRPS research papers argue anyway along these lines. So why engage in an edit war? John de Norrona (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

John de Norrona (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies

Hello John de Norrona,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, may be copied from http://www.linkedin.com/company/vienna-institute-for-international-economic-studies. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia!Template:Z18 MadmanBot (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arno Tausch may have broken the syntax by modifying 7 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)