User talk:Joe Decker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Articles for deletion/References in On the Road[edit]

Hello Can I get a copy of the deleted page, I am going to upgrade the main article with it. Thank you--Blanchisserie 19:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchisserie (talkcontribs)

Sure, enable email forwarding in your options, and I'll have it heading your way in a jiffy. It's in preferences > general, (As long as you don't reply to the email I send, I won't get any information about your email address, it'll be forwarded through Wikipedia, if that helps.) --j⚛e deckertalk 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I made the change, hope it's working. Thank you again. --Blanchisserie 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchisserie (talkcontribs)
Yes check.svg Done If some non-trivial sections of that get included "as is", you a note about attribution to the deleted article is probably wise. I'm sure a history merge would be a mess, not sure what the other options are, but at least make a note on the talk page on in the edit summary that they came in part from the other article, if you would. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 21:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Living[edit]

Looks like you double-closed this. Edit conflict, maybe? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Yeah, I probably pulled up two or three to evaluate, I didn't get a warning about the EC from the closing scripts, but still stupid of me not to have noticed. Thanks for the note! --j⚛e deckertalk 18:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

New stuff[edit]

Hi, Joe,D. I'm here about one of the AfDs you handled. I think it's a fairly straightforward one, closed a little early, easy to work out how the user's points were evaluated mostly.

I was thinking it may be one I'd take to del review--possibly maybe. The thing being, several sources I've found didn't come up in the AfD. Those that've come to light are established print mags generally, made up of about 4 languages (jp, fr, de, zh etc). Some are interviews (I know how you feel about them :), a few are articles with some critical analysis amongst them. There's also coverage in a book (coffee-table type granted, but'd be a few paragraphs on the person & seems to be independent/legit at least). While a couple are offline (i.e print) there're scans and such online for the overwhelming majority. Anyway, naturally I wanted to bring it up with you first. Thoughts? Also re the debate btw, would you mind describing how you weighed up Bearcat's input please? Thanks for reading. –91.125.182.5 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as for interviews, it's not so much how I feel about 'em, as how the community treats them with respect to our policies. With one or two exceptions, I am to be pretty middle of the road as AfD closers go. As far as questions regarding autobiographies go--well, there isn't a rule against them, but they are strongly discouraged, and WP:PSCOI is essential reading. AUTOBIO doesn't really have anything to do with notability, but repeated recreations are a reason to apply creation protection (WP:SALT) in some circumstances, that is likely what led Bearcat to their mention of the recreations.
In terms of guidance about the new sources, I find that many new editors have trouble turning the legalese of our policies into an understanding of what the community means by those policies. I've attempted to put that into a more top-down form, while this is still a draft, you may find User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable helpful.
You mention sources in different languages, that is completely allowed under our policies, but it may be harder to assess the reliability and depth of non-English publications. See WP:NONENG. Anyway, absolutely no concerns about you taking this to DRV. I wish you the best of luck, and hope you have a pleasant week. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 04:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

17:21:45, 7 July 2014 review of submission by MdvFdn[edit]


Hi there, the article I submitted for review on the Medavie Health Foundation was rejected due to copyright. I am one of the main content coordinators for Medavie Health Foundation. How do we overcome these issues and get our article published?

Thanks,

Daniel Community Relations Coordinator Medavie Health Foundation

MdvFdn (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, Instructions for licensing the material appropriately are at WP:Donating copyrighted materials, but I'd recommend you pursue rewriting the text in a neutral, encyclopedic tone in any case. Also be sure to read WP:PSCOI, thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: In terms of addressing the neutrality concerns, I usually suggest writing articles based on what arm's length, reliable sources completely independent of the subject say, and using those as basic measures of wording and weight. These would be newspaper articles, magazines, books, but with a care to avoid warmed-over press releases and such. Working to write from such sources is a very useful technique for improving the neutrality of one's coverage. Be sure to summarize, rather than copy or paraphrase, what arm's length coverage you find as a whole. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Deletion on Joel S. Schuman, MD, FACS[edit]

Joe:

You recently reviewed and deleted an article that my colleague and I have been working on. You indicated that copyright infringement was the reason you deleted the article, however the website (Fox Center for Vision Restoration) that you stated was infringed upon, also happens to be owned by the department that I work for, was written by a colleague and therefore not a copyright violation. I work for the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Joel Schuman is the chairman of the department and Director of the Fox Center for Vision Restoration. Neither I nor my colleague working on this wiki article have ever done a wiki article before and do not know the ins and out of the process and have struggled to provide the information necessary to get this article published. Any assistance you can provide would be helpful, starting with what needs done to show there is no copyright infringement. Thank you very much for your help.

Lori Ann Young UPMC Eye Center Department of Ophthalmology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Wallyl22 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyl22 (talkcontribs)

Hi Lori, Instructions for licensing the material appropriately are at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Also be sure to read WP:PSCOI to learn about our rules surrounding writing topics you have an involvement with. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 03:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

23:22:28, 10 July 2014 review of submission by Ghable1234[edit]


Dear Joe,

My article was rejected due to lack of notoriety and poor sources. I believe this subject is notable and deserves a place in Wikipedia. I must admit that the reason I know about this company is that I was a intern there for a few weeks. However this is a innovating company that even made it into a notable new source.(Google 36kr and Moveha to see it.) As for the sources I am still new to Wiki and am not great with with creating reliable sources, also some information had no source as I asked the CEO directly for some information.

Please help me make this article worthy of Wikipedia

Thank You

Ghable1234 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, :Ghable1234,
Moveha may or may not meet our notability guideline, but what the article will need to do to show that Moveha is notable is to include two or more reliable, arm's length sources, which are not press releases or interviews, which talk about Moveha in some detail.
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 deckertalk 23:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)