Talk:Daniel J. Shanefield

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Daniel Shanefield (talk · contribs) / Shanefield, Daniel J. Shanefield, Daniel J.

Wiki Editors: I added a paragraph to the entry entitled Daniel J. Shanefield. To confirm the new information that I've added, you can also see this paragraph in the http://www.amazon.com website , if you select "Books" there, and then search for "Shanefield." Then click on blue picture of book to "See Inside" that book. Then at upper right-hand corner, click on the words "Back Cover" to see the publisher's yellow biog. box that has this same info.

I hope you guys will make this a regular wikipedia entry. Dan Shanefield, March 22, 2006

This is just self-promotion, with the only supporting reference being an external link to his own personal website. Also looking at his edit history revelas he has been inserting his book into "Further reading" of other articles. Is this what Wikipedia had become ... self-promotion and ego massaging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.191 (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes! to some, anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a long history of conflict of interest. The main author is the subject himself. His contributions to other articles are just about himself. He has spammed other articles with adverts his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.147.7 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You editors can quickly see that I contributed significantly to the technology called "tape casting" for making ceramic insulators (such as "multilayer ceramic capacitors." More than a billion of those tape cast capacitors are made every day, according to that American Ceramic Society book that I referenced.) You can easily search http://scholar.google.com for the 3-word string: shanefield tape casting. You will then see listings of several publications that I wrote, including some U.S. patents, plus several hundred things that other people wrote and which referenced my work. dansh (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Dan Shanefielddansh (talk)[reply]

Ehhh...why should WE do that work? If you are so determined to convince us all of how important this work is, why can't you include independent, third-party references to attest to these claims? I'm not a ceramic engineer, but in my business we do that sort of work ourselves. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the reference 4. ^S. P. Lipshitz and J. Vanderkooy, "The Great Debate," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol. 29, p. 482 (1981). It is not clear at all what one is supposed to find there; more specifically, what assertion in the article does it support?

I've removed the who's who reference. Those are not encyclopedic. The reference to BAS is now part of a footnote in a new half-sentence in the text--admittedly a somewhat imaginary statement, but not far from the truth, I would think.

Finally, formatting of references to follow the look of the footnotes cannot be done like that. The references look the way they do because they are part of the reflist. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the earlier version, from the BAS refs and the edit summaries it was clear the intent was to supply refs for the cn tags. and that "The Great Debate" paper concerns the double-blind test. Marquis' Who's Who is usually not an independent ref usable to prove notability, but that doesn't mean it can't be considered and used as something like a self-published ref at worst. Of course another ref for the awards would be better, but it is not like claiming a Nobel Prize.John Z (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't like having to do that sort of guesswork--that's why I simply took it out. I can't smell from here what's suppposed to be in that book; you are a much kinder soul than I am. But the effect is that now we have one paragraph making probably four distinct claims, supposedly backed up by three different references... Admittedly, it's now a pretty good-looking paragraph, but it still does not stand up to scrutiny very well. And perhaps that's because the subject is not sufficiently notable. Still, I'll stay out of this from now on; I am much too short-tempered. Thanks for your careful work and sympathetic attitude. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel J. Shanefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415091158/http://mse.rutgers.edu/about/history_mse to http://mse.rutgers.edu/about/history_mse

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]