User talk:Joe Roe

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Corded ware culture

Good job in curbing some rather unscientific tabloid sensationalism ;) There's probably undue weight put in the matter now in that paragraph, but it's waay better than it was! - Alison ^❤ 21:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yeah – there probably is. It can be pared down in a few months when the facts come out and people stop coming to the article after reading newspaper stories though. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 06:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn's Cross

Hey, Joey. Thanks for the clean up on Marilyn's Cross. Looks great!

LMcCormick (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's a pleasure to see such a well-formed article at AfC. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Cody

Hey, thanks for the feedback. Appreciate that. I think I will add a photo and perhaps a couple more references and then submit it for DYK as you suggested.

PS. I'm new at this, not sure if this is the appropriate area to respond to your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcallahan (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You could have responded here or on your talk page, it doesn't really matter. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 07:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fadhel Jaïbi

Hi Joe, the autobiaphies are translations for what already exists in French and Arabic on Wikipedia and the same information is on theatre-coemporain.net. Could you please help? Thanks Aminazah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminazah (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fadhel Jaïbi: Born in 1945- playwright, film and theater director, director of theater training programs both in Tunisia and abroad. He studied Performing Arts in France (1967-72). He directed 3 films and over 20 plays. Most of his acclaimed works include Comedia (1991), Familia (1993), Les Amoureux du Café Désert (The Lovers of the deserted Café, 1995). He co-founded the Theater of Gafsa in 1972, the New Theater in 1976, and Familia Productions in 1994. Jaïbi has succeeded to make his mark as a dramatist and director in Tunisian/Arabic contemporary theater. The plays that he either wrote or directed provide valuable depth when considering socio-political trends. Without considering the list of themes as exhaustive in any sense, Jaïbi’s texts propose to examine all the conflicts of class, gender and language and address how they are played out on stage. The reception of his productions in Tunisia, Paris, Germany, Jordan, Lebanon, Argentina, the United States, and Tokyo, to name a few, encourage cross-cultural intermingling of all sorts, including artistic. The crux of his theatre is never straightforward. An analysis of any of his plays arouses all kinds of controversies that pertain to the Tunisian people making the crucial connections between the local and global context. His plays continue to shine aesthetically and therefore attract audiences numbering in the thousands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminazah (talk • contribs) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

theatre-coemporain.net is an acceptable source, just be sure to use inline citations and include the specific page where the information is from. If you're directly translating an article from a Wikipedia article in another language, there are a few special procedures to follow so that the authors of the original article are properly credited. Hope that helps. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 10:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joey Roe, did you have a look on the page????

Sir! you said: "This article (Boubaker Polynomials) has been deleted .... As this appears to be taken from an old, deleted version of that article, via a user's subpage, and is therefore missing a proper page history, ...."

The version you denied conatains 22 third party, independent, verifiable and academic sources, … how can you say OLD version?? it contains some sources (Book, Encyclopedia appearing in 2011 ,... old??

Please cordially and kindly clear this! Sincerely Dariocuccio (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three-year old cleanup tags on a supposedly newly created article were a bit of a giveaway that the article still contained substantial text from the deleted page at Boubaker polynomials. I purposely did not list notability, verifiability, etc. as reasons for declining, because quite frankly I can't make head or tail of the subject matter. My reason for declining was, very specifically, that AfC is not the place to recreate controversial deleted articles on highly specialised topics. I left a note at WikiProject Maths about the submission, so you might work with someone there (more knowledgeable than me) to recreate the article or, like I said, you should take it to deletion review.

The fact that this was message was left by a newly created account, the submission by an IP with no other edits, but the article clearly using recently written material by User:Rirunmot makes me think you know this very well, and are using sock puppetry to deliberately slip the article past the usual new page checks. And it's not appreciated. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I was asked by this user to propose the page, is this forbidden?, in not, please help by just having a look on the references ann/or tell me the best way to re-establish this page, if appropriate of course . thanks. Dariocuccio (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not forbidden, but somewhat frowned upon. You should be aware that by recreating the page you're reopening a four year old debate. Unless you can show that the arguments in the debate that led to the original article being deleted have been taking into account, the article would just be deleted again if I created it for you. The best way to proceed would be for Rirunmot to ask other knowledgeable editors (like those at WikiProject Maths) to look over his new draft of the article to make sure it's suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Thanks. and excuse any inconvenience.Dariocuccio (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. And sorry if I was brash, I can see now you weren't deliberately trying to misuse AfC. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mucking

Thanks for reviewing. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hilbert

Hi Joey! Thanks for your work on the Stephen Hilbert article. I have a question for you. You removed Hilbert's middle initial from the article title. That's fine, but I want to point out that the Wikipedia article for James H. Bramble, who co-authored the Bramble-Hilbert Lemma, does contain Bramble's middle initial in the article title. I feel that for the sake of consistency, it would be good to either put Hilbert's middle initial back or remove Bramble's middle initial in the article titles. What do you think? I really appreciate your help; I've never created a Wikipedia article before! 68.239.177.117 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice that. I generally like to use just plain firstname lastname, as the simplest form, unless the middle initial is needed for disambiguation. But as far as I know there's no policy or guideline on that, so I'll just put it back how it was. At the end of the day it doesn't make much difference, since whether you type in Stephen R. Hilbert or Stephen Hilbert you get the same article (because of redirects).

It's a nice article by the way, quite above the standard we usually see at AfC. If you expanded it some more you could submit it to DYK and get a mention on the main page. jroe ^tk_cb 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. Thank you for explaining! By the way, if you aren't too busy, might you be able to give me some feedback on the way I've formatted entries in the Awards and honors section and in the Publications section? I browsed through several articles on Wikipedia to see if I could extract a generally accepted formula (i.e. order of pieces of information like name, publication year, publisher, etc.). However, I've noticed that in some articles (such as Carl Sagan), the entries within the same article are not always consistent with one another. I imagine Wikipedia does have guidelines for this, but I haven't been able to find them. I'll really appreciate any help you can offer! 68.239.177.117 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't, as far as I know, and that's why you get inconsistency between/inside articles. There's a point where the guidelines sacrifice consistency in favour of simply not heaping too many instructions on people, I think. So yeah, what you've done looks absolutely fine to me. You could have used {{cite book}} to format the publications – it wouldn't look much different, but it's slightly easier. jroe ^tk_cb 06:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't know about {{cite book}}. I'll try it out in a little while. 68.239.177.117 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hogan

hi joey

thanks for your review. I have an article about terry hogan (who is my father) coming out in You magazine mail on sunday on 15/5/2011 As you can tell I am brand new to wiki. Is there any way I can post my dad's obituary online, as a point of reference for readers? fond wishes karen Hogan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareenza (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karen. I'm by no means an expert, but I would think it would be difficult. The copyright will definitely belong to either the Guardian or the journalist who wrote the obituary, so Wikipedia is out of the question, as contributions have to be released under a certain license, and even if that was possible Wikipedia doesn't accept full copies of sources. I don't know of anywhere else you would be able to put it, really, if the Guardian haven't archived it online themselves. You could use the obituary and your magazine article as references in a (freshly written) encyclopaedia entry about your father for Wikipedia, though. Hope that helps a little bit. jroe ^tk_cb 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, you are very sweet, you can find me on facebook/kareenzza. I am a journalist and should know more.....doh. When my article is published could I ask your advice again about trying to get it on site. Anyway, thanks j. karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareenza (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd be happy to help as much as I can. jroe ^tk_cb 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one last thing joey, is that, if you do a search for the first line of the obituary ' Final curtain for robber who got away' it comes up as a reference to a couple of aricles, although the full obituary cannot be seen. Do you have any thoughts on that...fond wishes karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.161.159 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep those article use the obituary as a source, that kind of usage is fine. jroe ^tk_cb 11:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Regina Love (Queen Elizabeth II)

Hi Joey Thank you for your review. I've read the pages about sources and notability. There have been no newpaper articles etc., and replies to correspondence are mostly private. There is the correspondence with Buckingham Palace http://www.elizabethreginalove.com/correspondence.html, is this a primary or secondary source? Most of the material on the website is original and would be excluded from an article (time- and context-specific interventions and contributions to a wide variety of events). Could you please advise if there is a way forward other than deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.254.68 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a primary source, but also not a reliable source, since it is self-published. If there aren't any secondary reliable sources then no, there really isn't a way the topic can be covered on Wikipedia. jroe ^tk_cb 19:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. With regard to the above, what does "Self-published sources as sources on themselves" mean? Is it applicable here, or as a possible contribution to another page? If not how do I delete the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.236.3 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that, if properly presented, you could use it to source. However, that's only talking about sources insomuch as they're require for verifiability. To establish notability (and therefore for the article to exist) you need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, secondary or tertiary. So for example, if I were writing about a recent start-up company I would have to use coverage in the independent press to establish its notability, but I could use primary material from their website to source factual information like the date the company was founded or who runs it, because those things are uncontroversial and unlikely to be published elsewhere. Regarding other articles, as a self-published source material on elizabethreginalove.com isn't considered reliable, so I don't see it being useful.

You don't need to delete the page, it will stay archived at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elizabeth Regina Love (Queen Elizabeth II). jroe ^tk_cb 07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again. If it stays archived could you please remove the "as an example..." comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.236.3 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The archived page still comes up on a google search. Will it be OK if I continue to develop it? I will add the 'official website' link, and some of the material from our discussion, mindful that the sources requirements will mean that it will not pass the review at this stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.44.183 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. It's archived in case you want to go back and improve it with the aim of getting it up to standard and having the article created – by all means do that. But Wikipedia is not a webhost, so if you were simply using the page to put up material that you know isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, because it shows up on a google search, it would have to be blanked or deleted. I'll put a template on that makes it clear it's not a Wikipedia article; please leave that on. jroe ^tk_cb 14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again. It's about getting it up to standard. It's a case that, because it shows up on a google search it cannot be left as it is and needs to be improved, as well as wanting to develop an article. I'll note this on the article. When changes are made and saved does a reviewer review it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.44.183 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit it for review again by adding {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the page. But honestly, it doesn't seem to be a notable organisation. jroe ^tk_cb 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and take the point about notability and that it is not inherent or inherited, please bear with me. The article has been amended. Is it at this stage more intelligible? (The layout needs improving.)