This is an archive of past discussions with User:Joe Decker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dear Mr. Decker:
Concerning the deletion of Percutaneous Hydrotomy, I feel that this therapy/technique is a very useful and curative procedure for the DXs mentioned in the article. I had a discal hernia due to an accident and after having gone thru many chiropractic sessions, plenty of medications, accupunture plus lots of pain left surgery as the only solution that I new at that time!! But after much research and scared of the possible surgical repercussions, I found Percutaneous Hydrotomy which solved my problem after a few sessions and did not have to go thru surgery !! I am not taking any RX for my condition and can walk without pain again a year after completing my treatment!!
I have been a US Hospital Administrator for approximately 40 years and when I retired in Mexico I went thru this treatment and was so impressed that I decided to come out of retirement and become the Administrator of The Pain Medical Center and Pain Relief Medical Center.com together with my treating medical doctor, Dr. Jose Luis Rugerio. He is licensed to practice medicine in France and Mexico accredited and trained in the application of Percutaneous Hydrotomy in the International Association of Percutaneous Hydrotomy in Nice, France with Dr. Bernard Guez, the founder and creator of this tecnique in 1985 plus a specialty in Aesthethic Lazer Surgery.
The reasons for deletion, as I understand, is due to lack of notability and Unambiguous copyright of http://painreliefmedicalcenter.com/percutaneous-hydrotomy/). As you can tell, we are the above mentioned medical center. I assume that we can go thru the procedure to allow usage of information derived from there and solve this aspect. As far as the lack of notability, Mr. Michael made reference in the article, our inclusion #10 under references, which is a study done in France concerning the benefits of Percutaneous Hydrotomy by: Dr.Charles Nguyen Van Royel, Traitement de la gonarthrose : mésothérapie conventionnelle versus hydrotomie percutanée à propos de 20 cas, Diplôme Inter-Universitaire de Mésothérapie de Paris VI, juin 2009. Should this comply with the notability aspect that Wikipedia refers to or do you need more references aside from the studies done by Dr. Bernard Guez, which I understnd does not qualify as such since he is the creator of the technique ??
Mr. Michael, the creator of this Wikipedia article, is also a former patient and very convinced, as I, of this great therapy but has never written an article for Wikipedia before and lacks experience.
Please let me know how can we solve this problem and publish this article to be able to help humanity by offering a simple solution to a very grave medical problem which affects many people in the world.
Sure! I wish I could recommend a really good introduction to our more critical policies here. Wikipedia:Your first article isn't too bad, and it does have some discussion about what we need with regard to sources. We talk about "notability", but it's about the number and kind of sources providing signficant coverage. I've been working on a more step-by-step explanation of our minimum "your article *must* have this many sources" explanation, it's still a draft, but you can look at it at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable.
But neither of these touches on WP:MEDRS, which applies here.
I don't see any discussion of copyright issues there, but perhaps there was another draft of the article which was deleted for those reasons. We will need to deal with the notability/sourcing issues first, those go to "Can we have any article at all on this topic?" , and right now, the community consensus is no. If the sourcing issue can be dealt with, and we get to "It is possible we could have an article on this subject?", then we can start talking about issues relating to what is in the article itself.
I have written Dr. Bernard Guez in France and waiting for his response as far as additional sourcing on the matter to be able to create a more extensive compilation of this particular subject and get back to you with the findings !! Will let you know as soon as possible !!
It is really funny that, even though I understand that the French Wikipedia has nothing to do with the English one, Dr. Bernard Guez was able to publish his French article on the same subject with the same references and sourcing without any problems !! Wikipedia has different standards for different languages ??
I understand that people using Wikipedia, which is not meant to be an encyclopedia, as I have read, normally look for information on subjects which are uncommon or not found in regular encyclopedias. Is this true ?? When Einstein originally came up with E=MC2 there was no sourcing.
I am not complaining or trying to change Wikipedia in any way, but instead, just trying to understand better how it works !!
Hi,
This article was submitting related to a nor profit, registered organisation which is working for the people. This is a group of people who are working selflessly for the people since 1958. It was a gesture move to encourage people to work for the society. But we are certainly disappointed with your decision.
Thanks
Secretary
Lajpat Nagar-3 Neighbourhood Residents Association (Regd.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretaryln3 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
When I declined the entirely unsourced draft, I explained that the problem was that you have not included reliable, third party sources which verify the statements made in the article. This is required by both our WP:V policy and our WP:GNG policy. If you would like additional help on understanding what those policies mean, and improving the draft and resubmitting it, consider reading WP:Your first article, and then ask any questions you have about the policy at our WP:Teahouse. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA)
Hi Joe
I am a bit confused - i resubmitted and tried to sort it all out but I am not sure you have had time yet to re review it - the system seemed to send me a message that it had been re reviewed but I don't think it has - if not then Ok - if it has then I need some more advice on how to get it to the level where it is acceptable
JerzyQQ - thanks for your updates. Your draft is currently awaiting a second review. There are currently 1,158 articles awaiting review,, so a response may take a bit of time. (This is, fortunately, down from over 2,700 at the start of the month, we are making progress.) --j⚛e deckertalk16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Skank Magazine
Hello Joe.
You rejected my article with regards to citation. With regards to sources to verify the article. How do I go about doing the citation? As this comic is 20 years old and was available before the internet. There is a link to the article on the wikipedia page. There is also a mention in Dez Skinn's book comix the Underground revolution - copy and paste the links in your URL.
Hi, thanks for the note. I can't see the contents of the first book, but the 3am post is an issue because it's an interview (see point 6 of the User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable, and the Amazon link isn't producing editorial coverage. You might try leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, there are a number of folks there more familiar with specialist sources regarding comics than I am, and might be able to find something. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk00:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Jeffrey S. Aronin article question
Hi Joe -- I just want to make sure I understand correctly after Bonkers the Clown rejected the above article earlier today. Did you reverse that and "reinstate" the article? If so, does it remain in line to be reviewed by legit reviewers?
Thanks right, there were around 100 reviews that I reverted after that editor's block, so the article is now back in the queue. I haven't looked at the review or the article, there may be some value to whatever concern had been raised, or there might not be--if you think there is and it can be addressed, I'd definitely suggest trying to do what you can before the next review. Unfortunately, this has all been a bit chaotic, and I apologize for that.
We are trying to beat down the review backlog, and the beginning of the month there were 2,700 drafts in the queue, last I looked, we were down to just under half that. I hope we're able to help soon. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk00:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of the Cantata++ article
Hello JoeDecker,
I just recognized that our discussion has been achieved, does that mean that it is already closed? We ended up like that you wanted to tell me more and asked me for some patience. (I realize my question about [6] was unclear. The question I'm trying to ask myself (with your help) about that page or so of coverage is this "Does that represent "in-depth coverage of Cantata++?", alternatively, does that page really tell us much about Cantata++, or is Cantata++ in that discussion, but not being used in a way that tells us specific things about the language?
More response later today or tomorrow. Thank you for your patience! --j⚛e deckertalk 19:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC))
So I did, I waited and also spend a vacation trip for 4 days last week; so I was not able to answer. BUT according to your question about reference [6] I would say that the book has got good coverage all around the topic in general. For prove I should have a look in it once again! Hope to hear from you soon! Regards, QARon (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I apparently dropped the ball on this. I will take a look after my morning coffee, in the next two hours. (Archiving is automatic, it doesn't mean I have forgotten about something, but in this case, yeah, I screwed up.) --j⚛e deckertalk14:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again.
Okay, let me review where we are, just in case we've missed something. The community had a discussion, I closed it as "delete", and we're looking to see if we can find enough in the way of sourcing that I can override the community's decision. I need a couple good sources that discuss Cantata++, and as you've seen we have a somewhat narrow definition of such.
Now, as I dropped the ball, I went looking more, and have found a few things that I believe will meet the community's minimum requirements. I've restored the article to a draft version at Draft:Cantata++. If I restore it now, I still think there's a small chance the article will end up having another deletion discussion, so if you'll help me do a little more cleanup on the article before I move it back to the main encyclopedia, I think we can give it a little more insurance.
You can see that I've already added three sources. I urge you to take a look at what I've done, I'm ignorant enough of the subject that it's possible I've totally misread something.
In particular, what I'd ask is this -- a little work on the Mode of Operation section. It heads a little more in the direction of "how to" and "essay" than I'd like, yet the article does benefit from having some (perhaps more condensed) discussion of that topic.
If you can condense that discussion, tie that into the material at [1] and add that link as a reference that would be awesome.
One more nit--that section takes a passing blow at the IEC/ISO standards but is so indirectly written that it's hard for someone new to the subject to make sense of it. The Dale and Anderson reference I've added could be used to back a statement, if there was one, that Cantata can be used to test to the listed IEC standard, if you had s straightforward statement like that, it could be sourced by adding <ref name="DaleAnderson2009"/> to reuse the reference I've already added in the lead.
Anyway, I think I've got enough now that I feel that I can responsibly override the community's decision with regard to deletion, and if you'll give me a hand with this, perhaps we can avoid having to endure another round of deletion discussion in the future. Thanks!
hello, thanks for your answer! I'm a little busy this time, but I'm looking forward to give you an extensive answer this week-end! I really appreciate your help. Best regards, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by QARon (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again. Wow, the article looks good. In my opinion everything you've done is right. And I also agree what you're saying about the 'mode of operation' – it isn't condensed enough and I have to work on it a lot. Should be more detailed I think... So, the next thing I do is to write on the mode of operation, what could take some time, because of Whitsunday and the holidays where I should spend some time with family and friends ;-). Just to let you know how I'll go on: First of all I'll enlarge the mode of operation; then, add the reference like you asked me about. Secondly I'm going to inform myself again about the IEC/ISO standards to enlarge that part of the article as well. An last but not least I will search for some references again during I write on the article. Would that be fine four you? I'm looking forward to get a great article with your help. Have a nice WE and let me know if you agree with my plan. QARon (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YesAllWomen 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. Beerest 2Talk page12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I have edited/modified the content for the Baxendale UK page several times but it was declined due to copyright conflict. I don`t understand why that is happening as I own the copyright for the respective text and I have included multiple references that were attesting the credibility of my information. The only possible conflict that might occur is that there is company with a similar name - Baxi - which stemmed from the same root as the company I was writing about. Could you please guide me through this process and explain how I can still publish my page?
It's happening because the wording in the article you are submitting matches the wording on the company's web page whose URL I provided in the decline note. Is that not right? --j⚛e deckertalk16:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I just want to state that, in my opinion, no consensus was achieved in this discussion. However, the article was deleted, although I made some improvements since its nomination. Again, in my opinion, this should be no consensus closure. I am looking forward to your thoughts and insights. Thank you for your time in advance. --BiH (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I consider two-opinion AfDs a bit weak, but I'll stick by this one. If you'd like to take this to WP:DRV, I'm happy to have it reviewed, I'd appreciate a note when you do. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk21:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I put the username DeloitteHK because this is the current company Chris works for, however I need to change it to my personal name on Wikipedia. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeloitteHK (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Take a look first at Wikipedia:Changing username, it has some instructions, limitations, and advice (including considering reasons why you might not want to use a real personal name on Wikipedia--this is my real name here, but that choice comes with some upsides and downsides) on getting your username changed. From there, if your new name choice isn't already taken, you should be able to request the change at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Hope this helps! Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk03:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Note from Tonilanec
Hi Joe,
You recently deleted my page. I would like to be redirected to my initial post to absorb the content and submit for edits.
If you would also be so kind as to inform me of the circumstances leading up to this action, which I feel is unjust, I would greatly appreciate it. Preventing this in the future is paramount to ensure your editors are not misunderstanding my company.
Hi. Happy to tell you why the article was deleted: A consensus of editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MinuteMenCreatives felt that the article was promotional and in violation of our WP:NPOV policy. My role in that discussion was "assessing the consensus" and taking whatever action was indicated. If you feel that I have misread the discussion (which is unlikely, since opinion was unanimous), that can be appealed at WP:DRV.
I think you probably will have better luck if you try and create an article that is more likely to be seen as neutral. One way to get started, which is the path I usually recommend, is to create a draft in your sandbox, and, when you have something that you think will be received better, submitting it to WP:AFC to get an assessment. You can do that by adding {{subst:submit}} to the sandbox once you're ready for a review.
Thank you! Just as an aside, I had been previously unaware of the 2d IR spectroscopy, I got sucked into reading about that. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk15:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft Article: Kevin Terrell
Hi Joe,
My wife, user:snapgrl, recently submitted this new article. But it was declined due to copyright violations. Can you please help us find the draft, so she can make corrections? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've emailed you a copy. I can't restore it due to the copyright issue, but that should give you the structure and references to work from. --j⚛e deckertalk17:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
new section: Article on painter Waleed HAssan
Hello Joe,
I noticed that my submission (on articles for creation) on Waleed Hassan has been deleted but I could not find any explanation for that... Also, I would like to review the content, but where can I find it? THere seems to be no log. THanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwhoami (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, I should have said more at the time. The article has not been deleted, but merely declined, what that means is that you can still see it at Draft:Waleed_Hassan, and can improve it and resubmit it. It is possible that we can have an article on Hassan. What we would require before we can do that, is to see multiple sources that meet the "general notability criterion" mentioned in the pink box on that page. Unfortunately, many of our explanations of that guideline are complicated and hard to make sense of.
More or less, what we'd like to see is a few newspaper/magazine/book sources that discuss Hassan in some detail. I hope you will consider looking for those additional sources, adding them to the article, and resubmitting. Let me know if I can be of any help. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk18:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Deletion Of Phil McCarthy Wikipage . . .
The article Phil McCarthy has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
I appreciate your review of the Integration Point page and for providing information on how to improve the article. You are the first editor to provide more than just that it was declined. I do have a question about it being declined as it follows the same format as another software company and their page has not been declined. I would like to understand why their page is fine but our page, with the same type of information, is declined. As I'm sure you can see from our talk page that we have been working on this for some time now and feel that we are following all the rules, especially in light of a similar company's page being approved.
If you could please let me know why one page is fine and the other is not, I think it will really help us in understanding what we need to change and why.
Hi Anna. With 4 million articles and tens of thousands of editors, there's lots of material, some from years past when we've had different processes, some more recently that were misreviewed or for which someone's judgment was different, that doesn't meet our standards, and while we continue to work toward uninformity, we are not there, to be sure. There is also a disparity between our polices for what can be "declined" and what can be "deleted" after it is approved, which complicates comparisons. This question is very common, we have an essay on it somewhere, I believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
That having been said, if you can point me at the competitor you are concerned about, I would be delighted to take a look at it and see if I can move it in the right direction as well. I've never heard of your company, I'm not trying to mess with you, nor is anyone else here. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk19:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Churchill Weavers
Can you help me understand how to improve the Churchill Weavers article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Weavers)? You indicated that it was presented as opinion and not cited from sources. I have lots of citations, so I don't understand. You also say that I use inline citation incorrectly. I'm really confused because I used footnotes.
Hi! First, it's generally a very strong article. The "essay" comment will take me longer to respond to, and I need to run right now, but the citation stuff only needs one fix, we really don't need the square brackets in the citations. I just tweaked references 4 and 5 to show what I mean, if you could hit the rest, you would be most welcome to remove the template regarding inline citations as well. I'll get back to you on the rest, I work with hundreds of articles a day and I'm going to want to reread your article in full before I give you a full reply on the essay, rather give you a good answer than a quick one! Thanks, and more soon! --j⚛e deckertalk19:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh. I couldn't remember having added an essay to that article, and I finally figured out why, I'm think you have confused me with User:Jodi.a.schneider, at least I am not in the article history [2] before I tweaked a couple references above. You might ask her about the essay thing, I don't think it's too bad, but Jodi might have some comments. Hope this helps. :) --j⚛e deckertalk01:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Email
Hello, Joe Decker. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. I noticed (via mention on Russavia's talkpage) the revision-deletions on this article. May I ask if someone asked you to delete this number of revisions, whether there was an OTRS request, or if there is other background to these deletions? I ask because when I reviewed the history last month, my impression was that the copyvio material represented a relatively small portion of the article and would not necessitate rev-deleting this many revisions. For my future reference, I'm interested in how it's decided when to delete such revisions (and I know there's an ongoing consultation on this with Legal going on somewhere). If more appropriate, please feel free to respond via e-mail. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi ... honestly, I have not done a great number of such copyvio revdels, I came by the requested RD1 redactions section yesterday and figured I could pitch in, but I am completely the wrong person to ask whether so many revdels for such a long history is consistent with current practice for other people doing the work, I just don't have a lot of on-the-ground time with the process. Of course, as fun as it will be, if you or other folks with more history in the process believe it's best that I undo that, I'm happy to.
As far as I'm concerned, you might as well leave it alone at this point; there was a justifiable reason for the deletions and I doubt anyone will ask that they be undone. And more generally, thank you for pitching in to help with the chronic, significant backlog in this area, even if this specific instance was borderline.
If you're curious (and I'm not saying you should be), there's relevant discussion and links on Russavia's talkpage (look in particular for the comments from Moonriddengirl, who's probably our most knowledgeable user in this area). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm always curious, and I have run into Moonriddengirl many a time from having reported copyvios, and have the greatest respect for their work. I'll take a look. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk16:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing my article Mostafa Salameh
Dear Jeo Decker,
Thank you for your time and effort for reviewing my article Mostafa Salameh. I will go through it again as per your suggestions, and thank you for the example that really made things clearer. As I understand from what you said, I should only state facts nothing more.
One more thing, regarding the photo I used on the side box, which was deleted as well as I was informed that I need licensing from the owner of the photo, who is in this case Mr. Mostafa Salameh himself. Can you please clarify more what type of license or authorization I should get from him to be able to use this photo or any other photo related to the subject in future?
Finally I hope you don't mind if I get back to you for further clarification and information.
You are very welcome! Thank you for helping to build our encyclopedia!
With regard to the image: For us to be able to use the image, the owner will have to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find instructions for doing this at WP:Donating copyrighted materials, which explains in more careful detail than I can manage the implications -- roughly speaking, the image has to be licensed for anyone to use for any purpose. --j⚛e deckertalk18:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently I can't, as the first has been deleted. Judging from the comments on the deletion, it seems to be a persistently recreated biography that doesn't meet our notability guideline. Is that the case? --j⚛e deckertalk06:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
BioScience Research Center article declined
I understand all your comments about the BRC, but I'm basing my article on some other similar collaborative life science centers. Their pages (like the Clark Center, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Clark_Center) have fewer references than my page. I can add more of the references that you are looking for, but I want to show that Texas has a thriving life science research culture just like the East and West coasts. That would be the notability. 107.202.77.178 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)ScienceMaggie
I agree with you that Clark also appears problematic as is. I'll have to look and see if I can find reliable sources on Clark and send it to one of our deletion processes. With 4+ million articles and tens of thousands of editors, as well as with many articles having been created many years back, there are many things that have slipped through the cracks. Our goals as an encyclopedia focus on reliability and neutrality, and the arm's length requirement is not something we particularly want to compromise on.
Still, your question, implicit though it might be, "Why do they get in and not us?" is understandable question, and common enough that we have an essay, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that touches on the problem. --j⚛e deckertalk07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
With regard to BioScience, I'll try and look more in the morning, but I see some mention at: [3] mentions the building in some detail. --j⚛e deckertalk07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, try looking through the nearby major newspapers, e.g., [4] search, while not perfect, looks like it *might* have a couple results that would help. --j⚛e deckertalk07:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Pride 2014
Hi Joe Decker. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Atlanta's Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. We are expanding the LGBT Atlanta, Georgia pages. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --tdempsey (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
While I obviously would have preferred to see the debate go the other way, your close was clearly an accurate summary of the consensus of the participants. Thank you. -- RoySmith(talk)16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
For the life of me I couldn't remeber the name Jake Picasso until a few minutes ago - it's been a while since I had deal with him and I have been semi-retired from Wiki for a lot of the last 3 years - but you found the SPI cases from back in 2011. I think my comments from May to July 2011 in the SPI archives for Jake sum up most of what I can remember of him, except I always thought he was and is actually quite knowlegable about British TV history. There may well be a few more works of fiction out there; I was able to catch a few by watchlisting a few of his favourite targets back in 2011, as he was fond of slipping in links to his hoax articles into articles in the "Year in British television" list articles, so I might take a look at them tomorrow if I get a chance. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm still impressed you remembered a sock from years back! Thanks for the details, let me know if you want a peek at any of the deleted stuff. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk06:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I was bit stuck for time yesterday, so I'm only getting a chance to go sock-hunting now. I was more surprised that I actually couldn't remember Jake's name, as I, along with a couple of others, spent a *lot* of time chasing him. I have almost all the Year in British Television and other list articles of a similar vein watchlisted because of Jake. He has a distinctive style with his hoaxes; the one that was at AFD had a few trademarks, including wikilinks for awards which were actually linked back to the hoax page and the formatting of external links and refs to make them look genuine at a cursory galnce, as long as they weren't clicked. Some of the articles he creates are complete hoaxes and some are based on actual people, but many tend to share the same strange career path, where the subject wins Emmys, BAFTAs and Oscars, and yet seemed to take what appear to be minor roles in (real) UK televison series or roles in fictitious Eurpoean TV series. The end result is that I could spot one within 10 seconds of starting to read the article :).
I know I made these observations about his style back in 2011, and I would guess that he read my comments, but that never deterred him. A lot of his articles never made it to AFD; once it was obvious that there was a Jake sock involved, the articles were CSD'ed. Most of his work got zapped fairly quickly, but I'll take a look now and see if I can spot any socks. I haven't done any sock-hunting in a while and I want to see if I can still do it.:) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Joe - I'm in need of an admin, and you're the first one that popped out to me on the recent changes :) Do you think you could speedily delete StarDrive so I can make a page move from Draft:StarDrive? I'd like to move the page ASAP as I'd like to take a nap (not joking; I got up earlier than usual and got caught up in editing, and my bed is calling to me). Thanks, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Joe, I understand completely that you closed this AfD as "keep", however, I am a bit disappointed that you didn't say anything in your closure about the inappropriate comments and false arguments delivered by COI editors (see the very last IP edit - which I just reverted - for example). I hardly can remember a journal AfD that led to such a contentious debate and so many accusations as to my motives. Unfortunately, very few regular WP editors participate in AfDs of academic journals. Anyway, thanks for closing this and wading through all that verbiage, it had been going on for way too long already and the outcome was rather clear. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll put more words to it, that's a fair request. There were some indications of trouble, as you suggest, and I think there may be one or two themes in the support for the article that can be at least noted for the record. It will take me a couple hours to get back to a real keyboard. --j⚛e deckertalk16:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Meh, I guess it's part of things. Funny though, that people yelling so much about democracy apparently cannot handle any dissent... :-) As they say: Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It is ironic one speaks of democracy while thriving in a non-democratic institution. The attempt to delete D&N had nothing to do with dissent. Very democratic indeed to delete a journal fighting for democracy using various bureaucratic pretexts to achieve it and ignoring or dismissing any real dissent from below. Any authoritarian regime would do exactly the same very undemocratic tactics.John sargis (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
In Orwell's '1984' war was peace. In the Orwellian world you are trying hard to create here, deleting a recognized alternative journal fighting for a real democracy is dissent, and those fighting to keep it in collective memory are not democrats! Wikipedia should be proud of administrators like you. Fortunately, it seems you are the exception.94.66.32.8 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Question about closed RFC Reboot
Hey Joe,
I work at Nuveen and we're trying to help move along the neutrality dispute on Nuveen's Wikipedia page. There was an RFC, then it was closed and a new RFC Reboot was created. Then that one was closed.
Just wanted to reach out and see what next steps we can take to get someone to take another look at this so we can resolve the neutrality dispute, since it hasn't been addressed in a while now.
First, wow, that was two years ago, it took me some time to go and refresh my memory. As a matter of 2012 history, it appears that someone had placed an NPOV tag on the article arguing that the coverage of the ARPS failures was of undue weight, there had been two RfCs, and when I (not having been involved at the time) looked at the second, it appeared that attempts to improve the neutrality of the article were more recent than the discussion itself, and I largely said "this discussion really doesn't address if the article is now neutral." At that point, I would have hoped that further discussion and back and forth hand happened.
And now it's at least 18 months later, and pretty much nothing happened.
I went and took a look with fresh eyes at the article, I had not edited the article or formed an opinion on the weight issues in 2012, my job was merely to decide if the rest of the community had decided. From my perspective, coming into it in June 2014, the section did still appear overweight, it seemed hard to imagine that a weakly sourced but real event was due half the article text, moreover, some of what was said was unsourced. I'm often a fan of "improve the other parts of the article to fix weight", but in that's only valid if the difficult bits are really solidly sourced, and in this case, it just seemed a little too play by play, and in some cases redundant, and in some cases trivial. The variable rate things mentioned in the third paragraph are a great example of the rest.
In general, it's best for folks like myself to stick in a given situation toward "being the closer" or "being the content writer", but it's been stuck so long in a state I consider "not okay" that I felt I could, in good conscience, move to at least make some improvements myself, it's clear nobody else has tried. I gave it a shot, it's not perfect. I'm not the right person to take further steps to improve it, or to argue whether I've gone too far or far enough. What I'd say is this. If you think I've made the article worse, revert me, I won't revert you back. If you think I've made it better, but not gone far enough, it's probably best to get some fresh eyes on it, and maybe a post at WP:NPOVN would be a good step. If you can make the article better, do, if you've got a conflict of interest but want such a change anyway, suggest your proposed changes on the artilce's talk page with {{requested edit}} and an explanation of the requested change. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely, --j⚛e deckertalk22:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Removing date of birth
Hi Joe Decker, do you know how to remove 'date of birth' information from being returned in search results? The DOB info has been removed from the wikipedia page itself, but the info is still appearing in search results. please help! the page I am referencing is Adam Jensen (musician). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaymusicmayor (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I recently submitted an article for creation "Quantium Solutions" but the draft got rejected. May I know what are the reasons? I cannot seem to find the review comments.
Sure, the basic explanation is in the pink box, where it says "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."
What that means is that the article doesn't meet our "general notability guideline." To fix that, the article needs to have added two or more reliable, arm's-length sources which discuss the topic in detail. These would generally be newspapers, magazines or books. --j⚛e deckertalk14:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I added two more citations to this article as per your guideline and resubmitted it for review. Please let me know if I have submitted correctly, thanks! Fuzzster87 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I've missed this-- it looks like you had submitted it correctly, however, and are now discussing with Tim Trent. --j⚛e deckertalk19:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Article submission declined
Hi Joe,
You recently reviewed a page i wrote called 'Cyclic Corrosion Testing', and declined its submission to be created, reason stated was 'copyright infringement'. This is the second time i have submitted the article, i would like some advice please, which parts of the article were deemed as copyright? Any advice you can give would be appreciated.
Thanks
JodieJlr83 (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jodie, The best way to not have an article submission deleted for copyright issues is to write it in your own words. When we find parts of the text that are word-for-word identical in the document you submit, as I did comparing your document with [www.ascott-analytical.co.uk/salt-spray-or-cct.html], we know that the material has been copied, rather than written anew. Was that your question?
My general advice for writing an article here is this
Hi Joe, The text on the website, wwww.ascott-analytical.co.uk was also wrote by us, does this still count as copyright if we wrote the original text? I referenced two books and linked them appropriately on the subject matter? Your advice is very useful,i really appreciate it.
Thanks
JodieJlr83 — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If you own the copyright, there is a process where you can license the material under the license we use for Wikipedia content. There are one or two implications, the whole story, and instructions for how to proceed if you want, can be found at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk16:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Joe i have done as you suggested and requested the text be released under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported JodieJlr83 (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Our volunteer response team ("OTRS") should leave a note on the article or thereabouts when that request is processed. Then resumibit. Sorry for the paperwork, or give me a poke if you haven't seen any response in a couple days. --j⚛e deckertalk19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at the article? There are some factual claims about a drunken episode that are being made, which don't appear to be verifiable. Maybe I'm wrong, but you've a keen eye for this sort of stuff. Much appreciated.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your looky-loo. I never realized you were an admin until seeing your talk page. To me that's the best kind of admin; one that doesn't stand out as one. Good on you!Two kinds of pork (talk)|
The nom and another editor have just implied that they don't know if the topic is wp:notable or not. Do you agree that WP:N is not defined by sources in the article? I trust that you agree that wp:notability is not defined by assuming the bad faith of the article creators. WP:N in several places uses the word "evidence". Do you see any objective evidence in this discussion that the topic is not notable? Do you see evidence that editors were !voting with less than minimal attempts to find sources as defined at WP:BEFORE D1? Do you see analysis of WP:ATD? Or maybe I should ask, why did you close this discussion? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
A couple of the participants (unusually) did indicate they'd followed some sort of BEFORE, but if you say those editors are elsewhere saying something different, well, that's interesting.
As near as I could tell, your lone dissent was based on what was a primary source. My sense from the few previous mall discussions I've closed is that we're not to a real consensus on an inherent notability criteria, and all it would have taken there, and more or less all it would take now to restore, is two independent sources... oh, you know how this drill goes. (Sorry, I don't mean to belabor the obvious to an experienced editor.)
As is all too common, ATDs weren't explicitly discussed. I tend to think of search terms with disambiguators are unlikely, but also incredibly cheap. f you want a redirect, and/or to put some editorially appropriate material into a merge target (one that nobody identified in the AfD), well, do so with my blessing!
Do I think it's notable, in the Wikipedia policy sense? I don't have a strong opinion, I don't know the mall from personal experience. No evidence presented to me convinced me the answer was yes, and being that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of sources, we often take absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
I'm sorry if you are frustrated by the close. If the AfD got the wrong result, let's see some sources (or I'll try and look myself tomorrow), and let's fix it. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk21:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The (possibly primary) 14-page book could have been enough to discern that this was something important to the city of Regina, and that WP:ATD policy would not allow a deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that it is considered a reliable source, but www.labelscar.com/canada/cornwall-centre gives an overview of the story of this mall. Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I did the newspaper part of WP:BEFORE D1 and found:
"Buildings to be wrecked". The Montreal Gazette. September 4, 1980. Retrieved 2014-06-16. "Nine buildings...demolished...$100,000,000...development...the largest government-sponsored downtown revitalization project in Saskatchewan...
FYI, Montreal is 1,500 miles (2,400 km) from Regina.
I found that the Regina city hall has archives that have been partially digitized, [6]. For example, of those nine buildings that were demolished, one was the Municipal Justice Building built in 1912. "Municipal Justice Building located at 1769 Scarth St. Opened in 1912. Torn down to make way for the Cornwall Centre, however the facade of the building will be preserved and used in the Cornwall C c.1975"
Is anyone going to argue that having the Municipal Justice Building demolished was not reported upon by secondary sources? And that this is sufficient to satisfy WP:NRVE? Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your comment that search terms with disambiguators are unlikely, earlier today we had a disambiguation page for people who typed in "Cornwall Centre". See [7] and [8]. Unscintillating (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I still owe you a longer response, I'm waiting until I have a little more time to do some digging into finding sources myself. In the meantime, would you suggest a redirect target that mentions the mall, or should? Please go ahead and create it while I get to the digging. --j⚛e deckertalk21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Your redirect looks good, and nothing in the close precludes it or the incorporation of material at the target, so I won't belabor the ATD parts of your concerns. And you may very well be right about redirect parentheticals.
I still feel that the case for GNG is arguable, and I don't get a WP:SUPERVOTE, so I can't restore on what I've found, I don't think the community was "obviously wrong" under our policies. Trying to find other suggestions of importance is pretty much irrelevant except to the extent that it helps us establish that GNG is, or is likely to be met, and given that we have no inherent notability (SNG) criteria for malls, pretty much any argument must be based purely on the specifics of GNG.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that a demolishment wasn't reported by sources (perhaps they might, but I wouldn't), the question of whether that constitutes signficant coverage of the building that replaces it is still relevant.
[9] this isn't signficant coverage, but is the best hint of significance that I've seen, describing it as dominant and super-regional.
[10] is shy of signficant coverage, and spends what coverage it has providing an address and calling the mall forgettable.
[11] is near the edge, but below, what in my experience, AfD participants have called signficant coverage.
I'd make similar comments about the couple sentences in the Gazette reference you sussed out, good catch.
I guess I should note that I take a pretty legalistic view of notability, I would be as happy if we used a different word. It's less a concept, in my view, about whether a topic deserves coverage in our encyclopedia as it is about an idea that there needs to be a base level of underlying arm's length coverage in order to create an article that is factual, neutral, and maintains due weight. If anything, a paragraph each in two journalistic sources is still a weak foundation on which to build, and here, I don't think we have reached that bar.
More than happy to review more, but there's probably not a lot of use in arguing with me about where I believe that bar is, you would be better off, short of new data, appealing to WP:DRV. I have also looked toward Highbeam for coverage to no good effect. I reread the article, which reads like an advertisement, spends too much time on open/close hours in violation of WP:NOT, and sourced only to the mall's web site. I do appreciate your passion for saving articles, sorry I can't be more optimistic in this case.
Hi! I'll leave it to another reviewer to make the final call, but you've addressed my copyright concerns, and I have noted that on the draft. Thank you! It shouldn't be long until the next review, the backlog at AfC is a fair bit smaller than it was the last time we spoke. --j⚛e deckertalk03:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Joe Decker. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for taking the time to review the article I submitted on Briain Gleeson. It's a shame that it was declined at this time but perhaps at the moment the subject hasn't quite reached the notability of his father and brother. Hopefully that will change in the future. By the way, I read the piece that you wrote on notability, which was quite useful, especially the specifics about whether sources are notable or not (the Pass/Fail section). This was helpful - thanks. Fbell2 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Joe. I'm not going to vote on that AfD because although I have an opinion on it, I haven't got time to do the required research to be objective. Did you know though, that ironically the new WP CEO is a Stevie bronze holder? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not! With thousands of awards per year (apparently), I guess I shouldn't be surprised!
I think from my perspective, the main thing here is "has what I've done and other tweaks gotten this to some semblance of neutral?", or is it a composite of self-promoted facts and undercutting data that come off like insinuations tending toward research? (I am curious what your feeling is on that question, even if you haven't done research.) It is possible that I'm second-guessing myself. --j⚛e deckertalk15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, as a practically paid-for award, with 40% of applicants getting one, I don't think it has much merit at all - alone by the sheer number of awards that get made - but don't tell anyone I said so ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You recently deleted Verne Harnish's page from here and was looking for more information on the reason why?
- It states that he's not a notable founder and the organization is not notable. He's the founder and it has over 10,000 members. It's the largest global membership organization for entrepreneurs.
- As for the the Fortune comment, he's a venture columnist there with 86 articles and he will be writing for them for an additional year.
- To touch on his book, Mastering the Rockefeller Habits. 300,000 copies have been sold worldwide and is currently ranked 6200 out of all books today.
- He chairs growth summits all across the world, most notably for Fortune.
If you could give some better insight into the logic behind the decision to delete the page, I would be happy to make whatever changes are necessary to have this published again.
Thanks.
Hi,
The discussion on the topic was here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verne Harnish, my reading of what other editors said, in view of our policies, was that the topic might in fact be notable, but that the particular content, including "puffery", "copyvio" (copyright violations from the author's web page/autobio), etc. My conclusion was "There is sufficient concern about the content to warrant deletion of the current article content, but I don't believe there's consensus here to prevent recreation of an otherwise policy-complaint article."
If anything, the editors there seemed to be learning toward notability, although I don't believe a consensus had been reached on that question.
Please feel free to work toward a neutral biography of this fellow written in your own words.
It is unusual, but not unprecedented, to delete content on notable subjects, but we do take issues of copyright very strongly, and issues of promotionally somewhat strongly. It is essentially never the case that self-authored biographical information is "neutral" (why would you ever paint yourself in anything but the best light?) so even where someone was actually the original author of the material we've detected matching text from, and even when they could have handled the appropriate licenses via WP:Donating copyrighted materials, it is generally less work for everyone involved to simply have the article rewritten the first time.
If you'd like, I would be happy to email you a copy of the article (but not put it back up as is here) so that you can use it to identify references and topics to include in a new article on the subject. You will need to enable email in your settings. --j⚛e deckertalk20:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Your comment
JoeD, thanks for the work you put in at AfD, well considered comments I've seen over time.
This however—[...] I [s]ee that little if any effort has been put into the promotionally of the article, whereas effort has been put into trying to prolong a then-unanimous AfD debate—was surely uncalled for.
I have made efforts to change that article from blatant puffery & bizspeak into something that meets our content policies (you may well not think much of my contributions).
As for effort put into prolonging (??) following my having said 'hi would anyone mind relisting a pg, I've edited it now so prefer if someone else does.', I'm not sure what was being implied.
Read a whole, it does seem uncollegial.
The remainder of the comment evaluating refs was thoughtful as ever. --91.125.29.135 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the article on Thomas Solomon (art dealer) that you deleted: I would like to revisit this topic and hope that you will collaborate with me to make this article acceptable to Wikipedia. Would you please help me to reinstate the last version of the article into the sandbox to work through the remaining issues to make the article meet Wikipedia standards (i.e. deleting any questionable content, incorporating needed additional references)?
I have located additional reliable references (beyond those listed in the original article) to further document Thomas Solomon's significance in the contemporary art world.
Sure. It's been a while since I've looked at the article, but it's now at User:Ccboehne/Thomas Solomon (art dealer), and you can work on it there. Two signficant concerns were raised during the discussion that led to the deletion of the article.
References meeting our general notability guideline are required. It was the opinion of the editors involved that not only were such sources not present in the article, but that there were not likely to actually be sources on the topic that met our criteria. What sources do and don't meet our various requirements is described at WP:GNG, but that explanation is so loaded in words that are being used in a specific policy sense, rather than in their plain English meaning, that it's very difficult to assimilate. You might also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful.
The wording of the article is promotional. We strongly recommend people do not write about themselves, their companies, and so forth, but it's not prohibited, either. In general the tendency to not write in a neutral fashion, to not examine the breadth of sources involved, and the tendency to insert things you know to be true but that are not contained in reliable arm's length sources makes it harder, not easier, to write about topics you know and care about. However, if you must, I usually suggest people begin by first identifying the sources that meet all the requirements of the step before, and *then* writing a new article from scratch based only on what those articles say, trying to summarize what those articles say, with the amount of coverage roughly indicated by how often and how much the articles talk about a particular aspect of the person. For example, if we have a figure who most of the sources talk about as a politician, but a few from his career in basketball, we would have the article similarly focus on the politics, but note the sports. You get the idea, i"m sure.
I hope this helps. You may also wish to ask questions at the WP:Teahouse, which is a help resource aimed specifically at the needs of newer editors here. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk06:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Joe,
Thank you so much for your help with this! I appreciate all of your input. I've started by reading through these guidelines first. Next I will evaluate the relevant articles carefully. Thanks also for letting me know about the Teahouse.
You recently declined our post from the CEO of Siemens Perú. We are adding some pages as references for you to review. However we would like to know what else would be needed in order to get the article to pass trough your filters.
Please give me the exact things you require and what we should fix from the current information.
Feel free to send me an e-mail to rodrigo.mondonedo@siemens.com
First, let me apologize that our hurdles to having an article can be so complex and poorly explained. It can be frustrating.
The basic hurdle that nearly every article on the English Wikipedia must meet is laid out in our general notability guideline. That document can be hard to make sense of, though, in part because it often uses standard english words "notability", "reliable" not in their general English meaning, but in very specific meanings within our policy.
For that reason, I've been trying to work on making something that comes a bit closer to explaining that in plain English. User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable is my work in progress, and may help. Essentially, for a business leader such as Zavala, we'd want to see the article include references to, and be based upon, the content of a couple or more articles in sources that are journalistically reliable, and completely independent from the man or the company. So, this might include profiles (but not interviews) in serious business publications or newspapers.
It is also important for me to add that, while it's easier for our editors and reviewers to do their work if those sources are in English, there is no requirement that they be in English, don't hesitate to include an otherwise-appropriate Spanish-language source.
As you have a conflict-of-interest (which is entirely allowed under our policies) on the subject, I'd also like to point you at WP:PSCOI. You are doing everything right, as near as I can tell, this is not a criticism, I say this just so that you know what our policies are around that situation.
As a final note, we largely discuss articles here on talk pages or on the article drafts themselves. As the community has allowed me to have access to tools not available to other editors (for example, I can, in a technical sense, delete an article), they generally prefer that were possible I work transparently on the site itself, rather than through email, and I prefer that as well. Thank you for understanding this.
If I'm not around and you're looking for more answers to questions going forward, you might also try posting questions to our WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a help resource for editors who are new to editing Wikipedia. They have some very talented and helpful folks there, I hope you find that useful. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk16:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I wondering if it will be possible for you to have a look at the details for addition with regard to his appointment. Perhaps it could be squeezed in, to follow the first paragraph.
Mr. J.B. Elliott's letter of accreditation as the first Ghanaian Ambassador to the Soviet Union was presented to him by the last Governor-General of the Dominion of Ghana, the Earl of Listowel (William Francis Hare), under the direction of Queen Elizabeth II. His appointment announced in Moscow on 8th January 1960 as Ambassador designate to the USSR did not fare well with the US and was critiqued in the central intelligence agencies bulletin of 12th January 1960. It was obvious the US government of the period would have preferred an appointee with a more pro-western orientation. Mr. Elliott presented his credentials to the then Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Mr. Voroshilov.
On 1st July 1960 Ghana became an independent Republic within the Commonwealth and the first President of the Republic of Ghana Dr. Kwame Nkrumah reaccredited the appointment, which he presented to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev.
Dear Joe Decker, I have just reconstructed the sentences somehow I felt It wasn't all that clear. Please edit accordingly and let me know. Thanks a lot, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
First, you have been doing some diligent research! I'm concerned about our ability to use it, but it's impressive to me that you've found the FOIA information.
I'm not quite sure where the Businessghana link fits in, I'm not seeing the Ambassador mentioned there--maybe I'm looking at the wrong page? I think, because it's not clear how BusinessGhaha came up with that text, that our policies would not permit us to use that for any controversial information, but ...let me start by asking what information you're using that source to verify. (Just let me know in general terms.)
I think, for the very, very limited use you need the FOIA document for (the US view of his appointment), we can probably get away with using it, for the claim of the US view on him, more or less. We have very strong restrictions on the use of legal primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY) when discussing living people, and those rules, while they may seem arbitrary, prevent quite a bit of mischief. (I'm not saying you're causing mischief! But I do have to work within our policies.) Anyway, let me know what you were using out of BusinessGhana, and I'll see what I can do. The text seems pretty good, the one FOIA-related claim might need to be made more specific, but that will be easy for me to touch up when I put it in. Let me know about the BusinessGhana source. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk04:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear Joe Decker,
Sorry I not to have got back directly, for some reason there was no email notification.
Yes, I would like to make an addition to the Ambassadors page. If possible inserted after the first paragraph ending (Head African Ambassadors Group).
About FOIA, no mischief intended, I have the transcript in word doc. The item was cleared for release sometime in 2002, he would later on talk about the pro-communism and non-communism bloc during the 60's with reference to his time, his president and country.
I went through the Businessghana link and don't know what or why I added it. Please delete.
I have made some changes to the text to be inserted, not much (please see below) I have also added a link for William Francis Hare the Earl of Listowel. He is the one that presented him with his ambassadorial appointment from the Queen. The text follows.
'His accreditation to the Soviet Union was presented to him by the last Governor-General of the Dominion of Ghana, the Earl of Listowel (William Francis Hare), under the direction of Queen Elizabeth II. His appointment announced in Moscow on 8 January 1960 as ambassador designate to the USSR did not fare well with the US and was critiqued in the central intelligence agencies bulletin of 12 January 1960. It was obvious the US government of the period would have preferred an appointee with a more pro-western orientation.Mr. Elliott presented his credentials to the then Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Mr. K. Voroshilov. On the 1st of July 1960 Ghana became an independent Republic within the Commonwealth, and the first President of the Republic of Ghana Dr. Kwame Nkrumah reaccredited the appointment which he presented to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev.'
'
http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=65196&back= (about Earl of Listowel William Francis Hare)
No problem! And don't worry if this section gets archived, we can always dig it out of the archives, or just continuing talking in a new section. --j⚛e deckertalk03:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear Joe Decker, Will it be possible to do the addition above without archiving? That way I would not have to go back to it and simply continue with the article when I get back to round it off. Can you help with that? Thanks, Dorothy81.204.38.26 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear Joe Decker,
I have received notification about 'Revision as of 15:30, 21 June 2014 by (User/Fuddle) "John Bans Elliott" On the article page he has put in "disambiguation is needed' I do not know why disambiguation is needed, I see nothing ambiguous. Gold Coast is a Country that was, before it was renamed Ghana.
Please tell me if I am getting the wrong end of the stick, I just do not understand the request. Can you please help me out?
K-rgds, Dorothy81.204.38.26 (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! First, let me say that that message isn't urgent, there's just something that can use clarification--in this case, the usage of the word "Gold Coast". If you click on the phrase Gold Coast you'll see that it takes you, as it would some editor not familiar with the subject, to what we call a "disambiguation page", one that lists many uses of the phrase "Gold Coast", and it would be nice if the link pointed at one of the entries, not the disambiguation page. I'm guessing that the correct link would be to Gold Coast (British colony) or Gold Coast (region), what do you think? If you let me know, I'll be happy to make the change. --j⚛e deckertalk17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ponyo left a note on the SPI page saying you were going through more Jake-related material. I had a insomnia-fuelled trawl through the trail left by new and old socks last night and came up with a few from two years ago, as you probably saw. Shout if you need anything; I should be online for the next few hours. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt review of my article on Jordan Tourism Board (JTB). I have reviewed your suggestions and will certainly work on improving the quality of my references as well as my writing style. That being said, I am no longer able to access the article to make edits, as the page has been "blanked." Do you happen to have any guidance on this? I made the mistake of not saving my work elsewhere!
This is easy, at least. If you go to the blanked article, there will be a menu item near the top marked "View history". Select that, and you will be taken to a list of revisions of the article. If you click on one of the dates and times of an older version, you will see the older version of the article, and you will be able to edit that older version. There will be a notice that you're editing an older version (which is fine), and you'll be able to save your modified version as the newer version. I hope this makes sense. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk09:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Michael M. Nikoletseas
Hello,
Thanks for the criticism. I agree with your comments. However, I will not resubmit the article. Some people work quietly and acomplish great things. I believe that the fact that this person has so many books in diverse fields in top libraries weighs a bit.
The diversity of his books is quite impressive, I had hoped that one or more of the books would have gotten published reviews that could be used, are there none? --j⚛e deckertalk09:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Article on Karuna Gopal : Deleted
Hi Joe,
I would like to know the clear picture in deleting my article on Karuna Gopal.
How could an article be deleted just only on the ground that it doesn't have secondary published references like books in JSTOR or free images? Isn't published Journals like FuturArc a secondary source?? I was trying to improve the references part by making the references more reliable... below are the two published sources for your reference (I donot know what other references should be given?? I have seen many articles that donont have any published secondary sources as references but they have been approved???)
1.Gopal, Karuna. “Sustainable Cities for India – Can the Goal be Achieved?” FuturArc (BCI Asia Construction Information Pte Ltd, Keypoint, Singapore)20,no. 1st Quarter (2011):74-77
2.Gopal, Karuna. “Ecotourism in India” FuturArc (BCI Asia Construction Information Pte Ltd, Keypoint, Singapore)27,no. 4st Quarter (2012):98-101
Free Images: if any one searches Karuna Gopal on google they will find many number of free images...
Is the article is written in a CV format???? Please check the format of other articles and let me know
Another reason quoted for deleting my article that am related to the person on whom I wrote the article??? How? please prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK06 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The two refs you provide here, FuturArc are works by the subject, not works about the subject.
The full form of the notability policy that editors were evaluating is at WP:GNG, the short form of it can be found at WP:42, and in that latter form, it is the "that are independent of the topic." that makes those two works not what we are looking for.
While editors did discuss other concerns about the article, only "notability" under that [{WP:GNG]] guideline, was a generally accepted rationale for deletion. If that concern can be addressed, then we could have an article on Gopal.
There is no question that the precise, legalistic meaning of the terms in our notability guildeine can be difficult to make sense of here. To help you understand what we are looking for, you may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful. --j⚛e deckertalk09:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
