I'm on Wikipedia

[EEVblog]

To answer the Dream question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_L._Jones

The Circuit Cellar interview seems to give him ample coverage. [7] But that site allows anyone to submit anything they want. [8] The link shows a post by their editor in chief showing the interview from that issue, but the interview itself was done by someone else called "NAN". Is this person a paid staff member, or just a random person who interviewed some guy on YouTube on their own and tossed it up there?

Nan is a Circuit Cellar staffer, it wasn't a random thing, or a submitted thing, I was approached by the C.J.Abate the Editor-in-Chief of Circuit Cellar to do a profile on me because I was the leading industry blogger. Nan conducted the interview.
This was a real article published in a real magazine that has been going for decades. The online blog copy of it is just a partial posting of the full print article.

[EEVblog]

btw, if you have a bibliography of your magazine articles, or maybe just of the most significant ones, we could add the most important. Good bibliographic entries would include the publication name, the company that published it and their location, date of pub, article title, author(s) in case there were co-authors, and at least the starting page number. The "archive" text that you've set up e.g. for DSOA is good but not enough by itself - by itself it falls to the "self-published" attack.

I published a list of some of my articles a few pages back.
They are not available online, just in-print in the old magazine pre the interwebs.

[EEVblog]

I think with the sources just added plus two more in the queue we will be on solid ground there, then we can get back to real work and fun.

The Makers At Work book should be a good enough cite.

I would add those tonight, but frankly, dealing with WP's citation templates is more frustrating than reading someone else's APL code. (If you've never dealt with APL, feel free to mentally substitute "Sanskrit" or "Egyptian hieroglyphics".) And I've had all of that I can stand for one evening

I just copy and paste another one and change the info.

After we've cleared this hurdle I'll link to specific videos like your Solar Roadways debunk and the others you mentioned. We can't make a claim that you're "well known for..." unless (again) there is mention of such by someone else - but we can claim that you said something with your own video as proof.

Yes, certainly not "well known for", that's a claim and "they" will want cites for that.
Something like that can be added as general commentary on what styles of video I do though I believe. I've seen that on many other pages.
I'm currently linked on the Solar Roadways Wiki page, and this DreamFocus person in question even edited that page to remove other criticisms of the project, but left mine intact, so must think it's credible.

Like you I like to "share the wealth" of knowledge and to that end I've done a little bit of editing on WP in a variety of tech areas. It took me quite a while to get used to the WP way of doing things. They have a "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual" for editors - it is about 100 pages! "Sheesh, writing for WP is a lot of work!" Yeah, it's not like dashing off a blog post on your own blog; it isn't supposed to be. The rules can be annoying but in the main they do make for a better online resource.

Yes, I agree, that's why I'm surprised my page even got up. It's been tried a few times before and very promptly deleted. Guess it snuck under the radar this time.
All it takes is one person like this Dream Focus person to flag it and that's it.

[EEVblog]

I'm currently linked on the Solar Roadways Wiki page, and this DreamFocus person in question even edited that page to remove other criticisms of the project, but left mine intact, so must think it's credible.

Interestingly I'm not linked on the SolaRoad wikipage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolaRoad
Beside this issue of my page, I think that page needs a criticism section too, because I think I did a thorough debunking of that one using their own prototype result numbers.

[RickBrant]

I agree. Once we have your article on solid ground we'll get to these other points.

Added the book reference. That's it for me for tonight!

[EEVblog]

I agree. Once we have your article on solid ground we'll get to these other points.
Added the book reference. That's it for me for tonight!

Awesome, thanks! 
This whole Wikipedia things started because someone wanted a categorised list of episodes on Wikipedia. Even with a wikipedia for the blog/me, I still think that's unlikely to past master on Wikipedia though?

[Psi]

Would Dave's Tshirt designs be of any use as references.  If we can find pictures of others wearing them them at official events or something?
Or a video clip of someone notable saying something like "dont turn it on, take it apart as Dave would say"  I'm sure i've heard someone else say that in a electronic related video.

[Blofeld]

To answer the Dream question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_L._Jones

Also from this DreamFocus guy:
"eetimes mentioned his name with others. [6] This is not "significant coverage" as required by the notability guidelines."

So he seems to accept eetimes as a reliable source, but is bitching because the article is not focussed on Dave. So maybe add this one from the eetimes about the uCurrent?

The well-engineered µCurrent (by Jack Ganssle)

http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=69&doc_id=1286994
....
One nifty tool is the µCurrent from EEVblog's Dave Jones. It's a very simple circuit adapter consisting of not much more than a selectable set of shunt resistors and an op amp. You could cobble up your own design in no time, but the µCurrent is inexpensive and well-engineered.

[Biff383]

  Ben Heck has a page, is he notable? We can prove that he talked about Dave.

[JJalling]

Excuse my ignorance, but why does all this really matter?

BR Jonas

[EEVblog]

Would Dave's Tshirt designs be of any use as references.  If we can find pictures of others wearing them them at official events or something?
Or a video clip of someone notable saying something like "dont turn it on, take it apart as Dave would say"  I'm sure i've heard someone else say that in a electronic related video.

Nope, none of that stuff matters. They want real media coverage.

[EEVblog]

So he seems to accept eetimes as a reliable source, but is bitching because the article is not focussed on Dave. So maybe add this one from the eetimes about the uCurrent?
The well-engineered µCurrent (by Jack Ganssle)

Not really, that's just a contributed article, it doesn't mean much, even if if is Jack Ganssle.
Stuff like the Makers at work book and the proper CC articles specifically about me are what matters.

[EEVblog]

Excuse my ignorance, but why does all this really matter?

Some people like to see the EEVblog have a Wikipedia page, even if it is effectively a page about me personally. It's a stepping stone to other stuff like lists of episodes etc.

[c4757p]

  Ben Heck has a page, is he notable? We can prove that he talked about Dave.

While there might be an argument as to why Ben Heck is considered "notable" and Dave is not, you can't seriously be claiming that anything a notable person talks about then itself becomes notable... Surely Ben Heck has mentioned his ass before to someone, should we start a "Ben Heck's ass" page?

Have none of you people ever written a paper or something? None of your silly "sources" would even be acceptable in a high school report!

[con-f-use]

Have none of you people ever written a paper or something? None of your silly "sources" would even be acceptable in a high school report!

I have written a few papers in notable journals. I wouldn't consider myself noteworthy, while Dave, yes he deserves a page. Wiki's policies on sources are antiquated and inconsequent and their tone leaves much to be desired, as does yours.

[RickBrant]

Man, "DreamFocus"'s response to the book reference really ticked me off. Hope I didn't lay it on too thick with my answer!

I should probably add the same book ref (well, different chapter!) to Jeri Ellsworth's page too.

WE HAVE A CONVERT. Not "DreamFocus", but "Wikimandia" (the one who makes his username incomprehensible).

BY THE WAY: What page number is it in the CC 25th anniversary issue? That sucker is over 150 pages!

[Someone]

Wikipedia notability is a joke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_circuit

Apparently notable enough to warrant an entire detailed page.

[Fsck]

Wikipedia notability is a joke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_circuit

Apparently notable enough to warrant an entire detailed page.

not only that but joule thief has one too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief

[EEVblog]

BY THE WAY: What page number is it in the CC 25th anniversary issue? That sucker is over 150 pages!

Page 98.

[c4757p]

Have none of you people ever written a paper or something? None of your silly "sources" would even be acceptable in a high school report!

I have written a few papers in notable journals. I wouldn't consider myself noteworthy, while Dave, yes he deserves a page. Wiki's policies on sources are antiquated and inconsequent and their tone leaves much to be desired, as does yours.

I'm not saying he isn't notable, I'm saying the sources are shite. Want the page to stay up? Fix them. And screw tone.

[Carl_Smith]

BY THE WAY: What page number is it in the CC 25th anniversary issue? That sucker is over 150 pages!

Page 98.

Just dug out my CC 25th to re-read the Q&A.

Had a laugh when under "What are you working on" Dave discusses the USB Power Supply,  and then his answer to the last question, "Your engineering goals for 2013" he says "Actually finish some projects." 

Not that I finish my projects either.   BTW, my name is in the author list on page 152, and the title of the article I wrote back in 2006 is lost in the mess somewhere on pages 148 and 149...   

[RickBrant]

Have none of you people ever written a paper or something? None of your silly "sources" would even be acceptable in a high school report!

I have written a few papers in notable journals. I wouldn't consider myself noteworthy, while Dave, yes he deserves a page. Wiki's policies on sources are antiquated and inconsequent and their tone leaves much to be desired, as does yours.

I'm not saying he isn't notable, I'm saying the sources are shite. Want the page to stay up? Fix them. And screw tone.

I agree that the sources, while not exactly shite, did not meet WP's requirements. Have you looked at the page lately? Or read the deletion discussion? One of the two "delete" voters switched sides, and the other agreed that the CC interview was good but we need one more - and after the book was posted he raised several specious objections to using it without ever saying anything was really wrong with it. I am confident that a closing admin, if neutral, will come to the "keep" conclusion.

[ivan747]

What about Dave's book "The art of internet dating"  is that referenced anywhere online that would be considered a reliable source?

There were a few reviews, but I think they are long gone off the interwebs. Some were in magazines and newspapers that didn't have an online presence 15 years ago.

Hey you can still reference them... finding them in an archive just to confirm the source is certainly not our problem. They're the ones nitpicking.

[EEVblog]

So Jeh rightly closes the Primary Sources message based on all the discussion, but then this Ronz person comes along and re-enables it? Does this keep ping-ponging forever?

[EEVblog]

Would the Renesas contest video be worthwhile adding?