User talk:Joe Decker

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Thanks Joe For The Suggestions

Thanks Joe for your good and kind suggestions for the draft article titled e-courts in India. i have done some modifications as per your suggestion and hope the same would serve the purpose.

59.177.203.35 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will take a look when I get a moment, but in general I'll leave second reviews to the next reviewer, that way you get the benefit of several reviewers. I hope that someone will be along soon. Thank you! --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for everything and sparing your valuable time. I am always greatful to reviewers of Wikipedia for their continuous and selfless services.

59.177.199.129 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. The article in question has been approved by MatthewVanitas, one of the best Reviewers on Wikipedia.

Thanks for giving the article a direction and shape that made it acceptable for the inclusion.

Keep the good work going on and all the best.

59.177.199.79 (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pangrams

hello joe decker,

i am one of the many typedesigners that used your list of pangrams frequently as we need to check every letter in its ‘natural environment’ - not only in english but also in other languages, including diacritics. would you mind restoring this article or give us a hint where we could find the pangrams?

all the best, marcus sterz (FaceTypeFoundry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facetype (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google still has a cached version of the page at [1], I'd grab it while you can. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah! We need Pangrams back! Where are they? The link to that cached version is dead. Many people worldwide have been collecting pangrams all their lives, it is a challenge to make a new good one. They are indispensable for showing typefaces. Prof. L.A.W. de Groot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.88.238 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link still works for me, you might also try searching for List of Pangrams. Alternatively, if you make an account and enable email, I can email you a copy of the article. Once you have the information, you may be able to publish it via Wikia or another similar site. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:39:52, 31 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Sanjaye

Sanjaye (talk · contribs)
- User:Sanjaye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to post a stub article till I can ascertain details for a full fledged article. Is there another process of which I am not aware of? Appreciate any support and help you can provide.

Thanks. Sanjaye (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As to other processes, editors who've made a certain number of edits can directly add articles, but those are subject to potential immediate review for deletion--the point of AfC is to make sure the article has a 50-50 shot or better of surviving any deletion attempts.

Here is my advice:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising your product, service or other business. If you are writing about your own enterprise, it can be quite difficult to write a proper encyclopedia article--and in fact, our policies go out of their way to suggest that you do not try. Please read and understand WP:PSCOI. However, if you do wish to continue writing such an article, here's some advice.

One of the basic bars an article like this is going to have to meet is notability, which is defined under Wikipedia as being shown by coverage in arm's-length, reliable sources. These are usually things such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books or scholarly journal publications, and excludes the sort of "reprinted press releases" common to some local business rags--those sources must be independent and reliable.

My best advice is to start over, and then work at finding those sources. Find out what they talk about, and how. And then write your article based almost entirely on those sources. You can use primary sources to fill in entirely neutral and uncontroversial facts (where's the HQ?), but the use of primary sources should be a minimum.

If those sources do not exist, then it is unlikely that any path you take to creating an article will result in the article existing in the long term.

This process is, in my experience, likely to be frustrating for you if you take any other path. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki on a Stick

Hello Joe, I used WoaS from 2010 and I think it is the best personal wiki. I added some new information to "Draft:Wiki on a Stick" and I also added some comparison info on other pages. Your note "multiple, reliable, arm's length sources" is only to look or download and try this app on https://sourceforge.net/projects/woas/ from my point. I know that you have no time for trying all software on wikipedia, but I let it up to you. Sorry, but I don't have any other reliable evidence for it. There is plugin https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tiddlyfox/ for saving in FF. Thanks Tomas

HI Tomas,

First, the tool sounds nifty. With respect to the sourcing requirements, it is a source of signficant frustration to me that we here at Wikipedia do such a terrible job of communicating our inclusion standards, but our general notability guideline has the strong consensus of the Wikipedia community, and for all its warts, it does serve a handful of important purposes as well. I will try and take a look later this weekend for sources that might actually meet those criteria, 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. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joe,

thanks for your answer and for your good job to do wikipedia better and better. I added some external sources about WoaS (wikimatrix.org,vectorlinux.com). I think, it's better then before. Bye, --Tomaswoas (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some other references from independent sources Tomaswoas (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:42, 2 November 2014 review of submission by Mankef

Mankef (talk · contribs)
- User:Mankef/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mankef (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe

Thanks for reviewing the article on the band SKUA.

Given that the band recieved fairly good coverage by the BBC in 2002 when Paul left S Club 7 and is mentioned in Guinness Book Of World Records for 2002 plus multiple broadsheet newspapers this year mentioning the release of the single Falling, not to mention SKUA is referenced in the Wikipedia article for S Club 7, does this not add enough outside mentions of the band to adequately demonstrate the notability?

I agree that on the guidelines for notability it may not seem to qualify but in the U.K there was a fair amount of press about the band that I would say satisfies at least one of the notability requirements.

Look forward to hearing from you. Steve.

P.S I have had the article subbed by a journalist so in addition to the notability the article it's self has been improved also.

Hi! I'm not seeing where you've added references to the BBC and Guinness coverage in the draft, we are looking to have the references that show a topic meet our "notability" (inclusion) guidelines actually be present within the article. The easiest way to start learning how to make references on Wikipedia is to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which includes a nice video showing how to use the RefToolbar, which makes working with references a whole lot easier. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Joe I see, thanks for the guidance. I appreciate your response I will resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankef (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Devaney

im writing to ask you to re-instate the Charlotte devaney page, the page has been active for 6 years

please can you give a valid reason for deleting charlotte devaneys page , charlottes page has been active for 6 years shes a hollywood credited actress as well as DJ/producer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_Friends_%26_Alienate_People_(film)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455538/fullcredits

Devaney's article was deleted following a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte_Devaney. Longevity of a prior article is not a factor here. What would be necessary for me to overrule the decision made by consensus of the community above would be evidence that Devaney meets one of our notability guidelines, generally either WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, those policy documents are largely written in cryptic legalese, so, 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 what our policy docs refer to as notability. I hope that it will be helpful.

Oh, also, you might also take any questions you have over to the WP:Teahouse. They are a Q&A board here on Wikipedia specializing in helping people find their way around our policies and ways, and are a great group of folks. Best of luck. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my draft wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Penetrators#The_Penetrators_.28Punk.29

Comment: Please see WP:External links/Perennial websites for more information on why social media sites, IMDB, YouTube and/or Find-a-Grave are not generally considered reliable secondary sources.

I have definitely looked at the WP you mentioned and found it most informative.

Thank you.

Spike Penetrator