User talk:Joe Decker

Please leave new sections at the bottom of the page, not the top. Pressing "New section" will do the right thing. Thank you.

About a cancellation

Recently you've canceled one of my review(Notre Dame Science Club). I think it was totally legit since I couldn't show much third party information. But I've hard copy I mean paper article and journals about that. How can I refer them? Tamim Ehsan (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Great question! For magazines and journals, I'd normally include the name of the magazine/journal, the name of the article, perhaps a page number and/or author if possible. For a book, book name, author and page number are great. A web-link is not required by our policies, although it certainly makes reviewers' lives easier when they are. The relevant policy statement is at Wikipedia:Offline sources. One way to think of it is this: if I were going to a library to find the source on paper, what information would I need to actually find the resource and the relevant info in it? Thanks! --joe decker^talk 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:35:19, 22 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dapifo

• Dapifo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fractal Rainbow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New subject was rejected
What I can do to improve the article.... This subject is very important and will be an important change on the future of cosmology... please, read again and help me to improve it to be accepted.

Dapifo (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

21:43:16, 22 June 2017 review of submission by Dapifo

• Dapifo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fractal Rainbow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please, check it with physics... you can see opinions in FQXI, an important physics WEB... please, read the article and also the opinions and rate... Let me know what I should to to be accepted.

The reason the draft was declined is written in the pink box, and says: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The way you correct the lack of "significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is to find signficant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the inventor of the idea. E.g., scientific journal publications, newspapers, magazines, and so forth. Things with an editorial process. Once you find them, you write the article *based* on them, and include them as references.

If there aren't such sources, anywhere, that would prevent us from accepting the article entirely. If you used the "article wizard" to create the article, then it should have explained this requirement. We are not a publisher of original research (see WP:OR). --joe decker^talk 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

23:40:34, 22 June 2017 review of submission by Warholtodiefor

• Warholtodiefor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Revolver Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

My article for Revolver Gallery has a lot of citations and is thoroughly researched. I have never written a Wikipedia article before, so I would appreciate it if you could tell me specific things I could do to get my post approved?

Thanks

it's not so much a matter of citations as the type of citation that's at issue. An article can be approved with two or three citations, but each one of them needs to meet all of the following tests:

• Each of the sources must be reliable in the meaning of our policies. Newspapers, magazines, books, etc., with an editorial process and a reputation for fact-checking.
• Each of the sources must give signficant coverage about the topic, and in the case of organizations/corporations/businesses/etc., that means each must really be about more than a simple news evert.
• Each of the sources must have been written independently from the subject, completely at arm's length. If a piece looks like a lightly-rewritten press release, for example, it's usually pretty obvious.

This is spelled out in WP:BASIC and WP:CORP, but I realize it's difficult to make sense of. I do get that.

I've tried to translate at least our basic criteria into .. well, perhaps not plain English but plainer English, at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable.

I hope some of that is helpful. If not, I would very much recommend the WP:Teahouse, they're a fantastic group of editors specializing in helping new editors get up to speed. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 02:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you gives examples of which of our references is okay, and which should be removed? I understand the need for using legit references but I'm not sure which ones you would consider good enough. The references in my article are pretty much all the links ever written about Revolver Gallery, so there's not much else I can add. But if there are some references you think I should remove, I'd be able to do that. Thank you for your time and patience.

Request on 02:38:25, 23 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ktkim980

• Ktkim980 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Coinplug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inquiry on WP:CORPDEPTH requirement

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing my article so quickly!

I am contacting you because I would like more details on why the article on Coinplug was not accepted. I must admit that I was quite surprised since I have looked into the Wikipedia pages of other Bitcoin related companies such as Coinbase and Zebpay carefully before submitting my article. While I understand the point you have made, I simply cannot wrap my head around how the other two articles, especially Zebpay, have been accepted since they also do not possess sources outsides just news coverage. So I guess my question would be: what was allowed these articles to be published while mine was not?

Thanks again, Ktkim980

Ktkim980 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The confusion may have a simple explanation, while I have not reviewed the other articles, it is very possible that they do not meet our criteria.. This is a common enough occurence that we have an essay about the problem, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

If you understand our notability criteria and feel that some of the other articles don't meet our criteria, you can nominate them for deletion via Articles for Deletion. But if you're unsure of what the criteria mean,.. well, let me cut and paste what I just told the editor just above here.  :)

An article can be approved with two or three citations, but each one of them needs to meet all of the following tests:

• Each of the sources must be reliable in the meaning of our policies. Newspapers, magazines, books, etc., with an editorial process and a reputation for fact-checking.
• Each of the sources must give signficant coverage about the topic, and in the case of organizations/corporations/businesses/etc., that means each must really be about more than a simple news evert.
• Each of the sources must have been written independently from the subject, completely at arm's length. If a piece looks like a lightly-rewritten press release, for example, it's usually pretty obvious.

This is spelled out in WP:BASIC and WP:CORP, but I realize it's difficult to make sense of. I do get that.

I've tried to translate at least our basic criteria into .. well, perhaps not plain English but plainer English, at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable.

I hope some of that is helpful. If not, I would very much recommend the WP:Teahouse, they're a fantastic group of editors specializing in helping new editors get up to speed. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 02:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

08:00:38, 26 June 2017 review of submission by Symbl467

• Symbl467 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Turing's Wager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing this article so quickly. You have marked the page as declined for copyright violation. This violation is confined to one section (‘Relationship between Turing's Wager and the Turing Test’): if this section is deleted, the article can be resubmitted. I would do this deletion myself and resubmit, but you have marked the article as a candidate for speedy deletion, and the users that create pages that are candidates for speedy deletion are discouraged from un-candidating these pages themselves. Could you un-candidate-it on my behalf, so I can delete the offending section and resubmit? Symbl467 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I screwed up there you had properly marked the quoted section as a quote, with a bit of attribution it's fine. I've reverted the CSD nomination. This also had the effect of leaving the article submitted for review, I won't be able to do a review myself now, but at least it's in the queue. My apologies for the error. --joe decker^talk 14:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Symbl467 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello.

Why did you delete the page I created named "Konstantinos Tsouvelekakis"? Is it by mistake? If so, please reinstate it or tell me to how to do it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takisot (talk • contribs) 08:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It was not a mistake, the article was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Konstantinos_Tsouvelekakis. To summarize, editors felt that there were not sources available (inside or outside of the article) which met our biographical notability guideline. Concerns were also raised about the promotionally of the article, but the key argument related to notability. --joe decker^talk 14:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A esoteric way is not esotericism

Please delete this talk page thanks

This whole talk page? Umm, no. Why? --joe decker^talk 15:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Esoteric Ways

Practices and Ways are exercises for an Intuitive experience by a Monk (emotional), Fakir (physical), Yogi (mental) and others toward self-knowledge. (by its nature, a esoteric life is a secretive-life-long learning process) ...Today searching for a Way in one sense depends on luck; even a lot of reading cannot guarantee or lead to a Way...Arnlodg (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk is to try once more to submit this subject to become a new Wikipedia content section in Western Esotericism...As a help to make Wikipedia more understandable about knowledge-esoteric-a human condition.. ...I have thought about citing and referencing as you suggested, but it seems to ring true the way it is now. As reality from and in one's own experience, exclusive of others experience...Arnlodg (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In terms of improvements to the Western esotericism article, you may want to discuss any improvements you'd like to make on that article's talk page, which is at Talk:Western esotericism. --joe decker^talk 15:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)