Jump to content

User talk:Joseph2302

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manojrana192000 (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 11 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PLEASE READ


If I have nominated your article for deletion (WP:AFD or WP:CSD), removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can leave me a note.
If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

If you fail to do these things, you won't necessarily get a proper reply.
Paid editors are banned from this talkpage.
WordSeventeen is indefinitely banned from my talkpage.


If you've come to this page because you got a notification saying I'm patrolling your page, then it just means that I've checked your new page meets Wikipedia standards. If it didn't, then I will have tagged the problems on the article itself.


03:16:08, 4 June 2015 review of submission by Mokawn


I have written an article that I think it could be noticed by Wikipedia page because it is one of the success issues in Asia on the issues of construction. I would like to develop on the article that I summit. However I do not know how to develop and what to develop. Please help me and I would like to request to review the article again. Moreover please help me to develop on the referenceItalic text. I find the information on the website because when I review other article they also put a source from website. But when I summit on the article it suggest to find source on newspaper and others. Could you please highlight and help me more on reference? Thank you so much for your help and consider. momo 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC) momo 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I added some references to the bottom of the draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph2302-

Thanks for the welcome. Still learning, and made my first mistake. So I'd appreciate your help in resolving an issue I found. Recently, a new user (GPMIP) made a large contribution to the Merger integration article. It appeared suspect, and really didn't relate to merger integrations, and was more appropriate for Mergers & acquisitions. When I viewed some of my M&A materials, I noticed it's a direct copyright violation, word for word, from pages 7&8 of Mergers & Acquisitions Integration Handbook (ISBN 978-1-118-00437-1). There are no publically available sources to prove this.

How should I handle this? Do I just undo the changes and include the "db-copyvio" language, or is there another way to take down the copy written materials. I can send you a PDF to prove the violation, but I don't feel comfortable posting the pages, in case I am then in violation of the copyright.

I've appreciate your help & guidance.

Jperks7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jperks7 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jperks7: If it's a copyright violation, then it should definitely be removed. I assume you mean this addition? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it, and warned the user about copyrighted materials. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- You just left me a note I am actual the author of the referenced book but could not figure out how to footnote myself and ran out of time yesterday. My name is scott c. whitaker and I am the author of the Mergers & Acquisitions Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPMIP (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're the owner of the text, the text doesn't have a suitable copyright license to be used on Wikipedia. To release text for Wikipedia, you have to donate it to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, however this would also place the text into public domain, so anyone would be allowed to copy and use it- I would advise against this. Instead, writing it in your own words (by which I mean words different from the handbook) is easier and better.
Although a second issue is whether that text would be better at Merger integration or Mergers & acquisitions, which you would need to discuss at the article talkpages. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the conflict of interest with my posts

Don't linkspam

Hi !!! i wasn't sure of how to reply on the previous thread. i'm writing primarily to apologize to the 70 odd posts to the cricketers pages. i am trying to post the company who manage cricketers across India and was advised that since Wiki is the place people search for info, it would be best if i sign up and start there! i now know how wrong it was of me to do this. i have read the COI now and have realized that i shouldn't have done the same. i am still learning the ropes when it comes to what to do on digital/social media platforms and what not. i realize this incident was one of the don'ts. I thank you for sending me the warning this early, else i would never have known why the posts were getting deleted and the count would have surely gone from 70 to 90 or 100. Also, is there a way i can reach out to you via mail so that i can get to know the do's and don'ts of going digital and getting my stuff right? it would surely help a great deal. looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejasraomys (talk • contribs) 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But most Wikipedians don't care who a cricketer's manager is- unless it's covered in reliable sources (e.g. newspaper articles), then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Most of the Wikipedia comes from content on ESPN Cricinfo, Cricket World, and newspapers (for Indian cricketers, a lot comes from Times of India and Hindu Times)- content from primary sources about companies isn't encyclopedic material. With respect, if you want people to know which players you manage, then you should use your website and their personal websites, not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEarth Cleaning

Spamming sockpuppets, blocked

I received your message. I have made the changes with descriptions in the edit summary. Also, please remove ref 3 &5; Cite error: The named reference sfenvironment was invoked but never defined (see the help page) and Riesenman, Stephanie. “Alternative Dry Cleaning Method May Be Unsafe.” February 17, 2005. Accessed 2007-08-01. they are not accurate, and are outdated. We have multiple studies much more recent proving otherwise. As they are listed in our references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenEarth Cleaning (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, stop deleting all the content. As I already said, rather than reverting continuously, discuss it at Talk:GreenEarth Cleaning instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was told me username did not comply, so I changed it. You told me I needed to leave a valid reason in the edit summary page, so I did that. Yet you continue to revert my edits. What is the issue? Someone has posted fale information, outdated studies that have since been proven wrong by the EPA, SEHSC, and Environment Canada. All I am trying to do is remove that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnewport (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I told you to go to the talkpage to discuss it. I also told you about WP:3RR which between the 2 accounts you have violated. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI/SPA articles

Graceful withdrawal on Hanlon, given that it read like self-promotion and was started by a sockpuppet, I understood the AFD. Writing to ask if you would revisit your early !Vote on Jean Griswold, another-COI created piece of self-promotion that I took a fancy to and sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Radley CSD

Please be more careful with applying CSDs. Paul Radley clearly claims notability and is not spam. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was created as a PR sockpuppet, and claims some notability amongst a ton of spammy puffery. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can you take a look at this ? I am not sure if there is any kind of protocol of lay out people here agreed about before ...thats why i am asking :) and the editor who ignored my invite to discuss , adding runners up for Spanish super cups as an honor?? it is seriously stupid , worse than adding palyoff winning as an honor..two clubs are playing one of them should be a loser lol! thank you :) Adnan (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Samala Venu

Hello Joseph2302. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Samala Venu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  11:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but whatever. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your note at AN

Hey joseph maybe you want to reconsider this. we have a lot of work and just rollbacking all those edits would be amazing. i think your !vote there stopped the conversation and in my view it would have been great (and a huge burden off us) to get rid of them at a high level. i thought i left you a note like this before but i can't find it, if i did... Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: With respect, I've noticed that quite a lot of the articles are about notable things, that just need a bit of tidying up. Almost all the CEOs are notable enough, and a lot of them had been cleaned up previously anyway, the baseball players are all notable, and some of the other ones are too. Whilst the quickest way would be to delete everything, I believe that they have created at least 20-30 (probably more) articles that are definitely good enough for Wikipedia, and lots of the rest are just about good enough. Therefore, I think we should only be deleting the rubbish ones. I've put 15ish up for AfD, and a few others have PRODs, but although I disagree with how these articles were created, the end product of them is actually beneficial and encyclopedic IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a sense of how many they created that need going through? Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it's around 150- some of them created 25-30 articles, but quite a few only created 2 or 3. If a decent number of them can be kept, then I'd consider it worth checking them all- and I'm pretty sure there's over 50 that will be kept, probably nearer 75. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, us taking up our volunteer time to go through that much socked and paid editing is ... abusive. I really think they should just be rolled back. I appreciate your energy though. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames

Our submission was rejected because of copyright concerns with the article http://archive.org/stream/arxiv-0912.2935/0912.2935_djvu.txt .. Lusanna (the author of the cited article) and I wrote the Wikipedia submission. We wish to rewrite those portions of that submission which have significant overlap with the cited article. We wish therefore that our article be retained in my sandbox for the editing that I wish to do. Thank you Horace Crater Hcrater (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hcrater: That's fine, the article is still at Draft:Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames. Also, when you say "Lusanna and I wrote the article", are you both using the same account? Because Wikipedia doesn't allow multiple users to share the same account- each individual must have their own account. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who prepared the article . It is based in part on material on published papers we have either coauthored or just one of us authored. Of course we give appropriate references to our papers and the many others Hcrater (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Software-Defined Enterprise: more appropriate for Wiktionary?

Hi Joseph,

My apologies for the delay, I believe that rather than preparing this entry for Wikipedia Encyclopedia, would the right place be as an idiom in Wiktionary? The following references illustrate the notability of “Software-Defined Enterprises” by providing the first use of the term (#1) , exemplary definitions (#2,#3, #4 AND #5), evidence of the establishment of the S-DE profession (#6,#7, #8) and the confusion associated with the term (#9).

References spanning more than one year (per requirement to be included in Wiktionary): 1) VMWare: February 2014 VMware Partner Exchange “VMwarePEX Day 1 Keynote Wrap Up of Software Defined Enterprise”, from this Day 1 Wrap Up “This year VMware introduced a new term to the partner community, the Software-Defined Enterprise”. 2) VMWare: 2014 VMware Forum Keynote Presentation :“ Realizing the Software-Defined Enterprise”, at this conference. From the keynote presentation, S-DE is defined as “A self-service infrastructure that conforms to Enterprise IT requirements”. In this article, VM describes the software-defined enterprise as consisting of three major parts: network, storage and data center. 3) Dell: ITWORLD CANADA 2014 event Dell Keynote Presentation: “Dell Software Defined Enterprise: A practical vision of future ready IT”. From the keynote presentation, S-DE is defined as “An agile efficient foundation for growth everywhere” 4) CIO Insight 2014: “The Race for the Software-Defined Enterprise”, in this article the S-DE definition is referred to by “What initially started out as an effort to create the software-defined data center is now a race to define the software-defined enterprise in a way that brings server, network and storage management under one common framework.” 5) Wired: Article “Software-Defined Enterprises Are the Future”, defines S-DE as “organizations [able] to revolutionize their business model by establishing software as a core strategy, enabled by private or hybrid cloud solutions”. 6) Indeed.com: Salary analysis for “Software-Defined Enterprise Specialist” 7) LinkedIn: Professional category on linked in for S-DE Specialist – members are from VMware and Dell so far. 8) Software-Defined Enterprise World Forum 2015: http://softwaredefined-enterprise.com/ 9) Computer Weekly: Article illustrating confusion around Software-Defined Enterprise/Everything states : “And although "software-defined everything" (SDE) heralds a return to the tried-and-tested three-letter acronym (TLA) formula, its precise meaning to many CIOs is as nebulous as its more descriptive predecessor used to be.”

In light of your comments and above, should I propose the definition to Wiktionary, modify my previous submission, or do both?

This is proposed entry for Wiktionary that I would submit via its portal if you agree:

Noun Software-Defined Enterprise (Software-Defined Enterprises) 1. (management) An enterprise is deemed software-defined when it’s business model, governance and management system, policies, programs and services are defined using software by those responsible for collaboratively discharging the enterprise’s mandate in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Practices. 2. (Information and Communications Technology) A Software-Defined Enterprise that is represented such that it may be automatically deployed to enterprise information systems and equipment. 3. (computer science) The software-generated data in open standard format that represents an enterprise and that may be deployed using open standard network protocols to the enterprise’s devices, application software, network infrastructure and storage equipment. 4. (change management) a Software-Defined Enterprise that represents the results of a business transformation exercise; also referred to as a Software-Redefined Enterprise.


Immeasurable thanks, Daood 134.117.249.65 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC) 134.117.249.65 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@134.117.249.65:/Daood, I don't know about Wikitionary, sorry- from what you've said, it sounds like that would be an acceptable entry for Wikitionary.
Those sources would also be good for the Wikipedia draft- if you add those sources to Draft:Software-Defined Enterprise, I think it's got a decent chance of being accepted, as I think 8 of those sources look to be reliable sources (Wikipedia doesn't accept LinkedIn as a reliable source)- if you could find a few more similar sources about the topic, that would increase the chances of it being accepted on Wikipedia.
Personally, it seems like doing both is a viable option to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Yes I'm a talkpage stalker

Have you been watching my talk page? TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your page is on my watchlist for some reason. They've tried to start a discussion at Talk:OWSLA about it now, like I suggested. I've explained a few times to them that "Email me" isn't a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not annoyed buddy, just that you mentioned on the talk page of the user that And telling people to email you isn't the correct way either and I wondered how you knew that, but don't worry, I was just wondering thats all.Thank You! TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They used "I work for the company, email me about it" as an edit summary as well, which was how I originally found it. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online petition edits.

User blocked now

I don't quite understand the need for a citation on common knowledge. I can show actual examples of this happening; libel, uninformed masses being encouraged to sign under deception, multiple signatures from the same household, activists with hacked email accounts of anti supporters bragging about using them to add signatures out of malice..... I can also show actual examples of where I've signed petitions as "Bill gates" and "Victoria Stilwell". What exactly do you need as a citation, this is no secret, these sites are corrupt as hell, I've been the target of harassment, had libelous petitions removed after having to involve the EU commission because the sites didn't want to know, had my inbox more or less blocked with spam emails telling me some moron has started a petition and every time there's 10 new signatures I get an email in an attempt to bully me into changing a course of action..... all of this is personal experience, and not just based on a sample of 1 instance. I'm well versed in the negative aspects of online petitions and am speaking as an authority from the shitty end of the stick these sites create. What do you need as evidence or proof? Buckmysalls (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're the same person as the IP who asked exactly the same question at User talk:Winner 42 after making exactly the same edits. The answer is that everything added to Wikipedia needs to be properly verifiable- saying "I know it's true" isn't good enough, as anyone could say that, and there's no verifiable record of it actually being true. Therefore, everything added needs to be supported by reliable sources, to maintain the verifiable credability of the encyclopedia. Also, read WP:NPOV, the tone of this is not neutral, it's arguing a point that online petitions harass. If this is true, find some sources supporting it, and add it in an unbiased way. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is unbiased, I'm simply stating a fact that can be shown times over. Unless someone states this to begin with there won't ever be a source. Well, here it is, here's the source, it's on Wikipedia. An online petition with zero substance, flawed argument, based on incorrect or false information, then targeted at an individual or organization and encouraged to be spread on social media is harassment. It's not difficult to prove, these sites are packed with examples. It's not just a case of "I know it's true", it's undeniable, the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face, 5 minutes spent on these sites and even the most critical could be convinced. Are you implying it's not true unless I can copy and paste a link from another site stating exactly the same? What makes a source credible? Thing is, it's common knowledge amongst activists, that's why they use these sites, that's why they use this technique, the sites themselves exist to rake in dorrah so they're not likely to own up to being conduits for harassment, but the very nature of the sites and the more malicious users do exactly that. I can link to an example of exactly that if it helps and explain exactly why it's flawed, give evidence of malicious intent, examples of an individual using multiple emails and accounts to sign several times, all on one petition. Would that do as a credible citation? Buckmysalls (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:30, 7 June 2015 review of submission by Amarecanbhai


Just need some help on knowing how many reference citations do I need to add to the article for it to be approved, and also a little help with images. Thanks.

Amarecanbhai (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Hoy Kangaloid (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kangaloid: Thank you, but I'm not an admin. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2015)

An example of sport – a view of the 1906 unofficial Olympic Games
Hello, Joseph2302.

The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections:

Previous selections: Buggy (automobile) • Types of chocolate • Deep frying

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

01:39:36, 8 June 2015 review of submission by SG Ultima


Hello Joseph, just saw your comments on the draft page for "Xtreme Chaotix," in particular regarding how "much of the information is unsourced, and so is original research, which is not permitted."

Appreciate if you can help identify which parts are you referring that are unsourced. Unfortunately, as the organisation was dissolved, the website with relevant information regarding its existence and history cannot be found today (other than through info provided by its founding members and remnant articles from forums or websites). I have loads of documents officially recognising sponsorship from international brands, and images of our organisation winning major gaming championships. Would those help?

Also appreciate if you can elaborate why this is not suitable for wikipedia, since the idea for generating this page was inspired from another local gaming team under the article "PMS Asterisk" - which seem to source most of the info from the creator's personal blog.

Thanks!

SG Ultima (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the topic isn't unsuitable for Wikipedia, the amount of original research and unsourced content is unsuitable. There are about 6 whole paragraphs of text without any reliable sources to support them- unsourced sections count as original research. If the organisation is actually notable, per WP:GNG and WP:ORG, then sources other than their official, and apparently now defunct, website will support the claims you make in a draft- generally using primary sources for anything other than basic information is discouraged anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Jimi Hendrix and acid rock

Hi! Would you care to comment at this RfC? It is about the article Jimi Hendrix and whether "acid rock" warrants inclusion in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, RfCs aren't really my thing, and I especially don't like getting involved in controversial topics where I have no subject knowledge. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shagadelicbasil23 popping up

Hi, I've noticed that you have been involved in the blocking of User:Shagadelicbasil23 and finding the other accounts used by them. I think 101.160.12.43 is a sock puppet because of very similar edits, pages they edited, tags etc. I am unsure of the formal process and exactly what to do when reporting it to the sock puppet case page, and I know it is even harder when it is an IP address, so I thought it would be useful to make you aware of it, since you have had quite a bit of success so far. Thanks Flickerd (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flickerd: Yes, looks like a duck to me- lots of small, consecutive edits, all on cricket/AFL pages (which were the only ones Shagadelicbasil23 edited), every edit tagged as a "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit". As it's an IP address, no-one will run a Checkuser on it (since the results would probably be considered as outing), but I'll file an SPI and see what happens. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Flickerd (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time zones

Hello Joseph2302, Thank you for spotting that error for me, I am using a template and I must of forgot to change the time zones. Thanks once again. Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for adding the information. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

I know its an admins job not mine to add block notices, I thought that I would save an admin time by doing it myself, thats all TeaLover1996 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for your message in this matter TeaLover1996 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:56:50, 9 June 2015 review of submission by Harmonslide

My mistake, not a copyvio


I'd like to contest the deletion of the submission page below (on ribosomal natural products) as I believe the "copyright infringement" judgment have been made in error. I've re-reviewed the material, which was written independently (not copied from other sources) and which has a unique organization and set of figures (none of which are copied). I believe the appearance of "close paraphrasing" is a misreading of the Duplicate Detector report, as detailed on my "Contested Deletion" help page. Thank you for your time--I'm hoping this can be cleared up! If I missed something huge, I'd like to know. Harmonslide (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Harmonslide/sandbox. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Mary Ann Tighe page

Joseph2302, I'm just thanking you for your help on the Mary Ann TIghe Wikipedia page; and I have what I hope is a brief question -- it's on my Talk page under your comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Botteghe_Oscure#To_Joseph2302.2C_thank_you_so_much_for_your_help_on_the_Mary_Ann_TIghe_Wikipedia_page

Thanks again, Botteghe Oscure (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote

  • Hello Joseph2302:
This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 27 of 2015. Thanks for participating!
Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 05:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things to consider while creating brand page on wikipedia

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia & I have seen that there are lots of company (brand) pages in wikipedia. I don't want to promote any business but would like to create a page for new brand in wikipedia & follow all the guidelines of wikipedia.

Can you give me information of how to create a brand page in wikipedia without violating its guidelines?

Shimpchimp (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:47:22, 9 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ForeitN

Appears to have been deleted


Thanks for taking the time to help review my first Wikipedia entry for the Perry Center. I see that you declined the posting because I had copied some material over from our own annual report, which is public domain, as we are a part of the Department of Defense. I have no problems making changes to the text of my article entry, but I am unable to retrieve any of the content that I created. Is there a way I can get it back so I can make edits to comply with the proper rules?

Best regards,

-Nick

ForeitN (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Noyster, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Check for edit conflicts more carefully so you don't remove talkpage comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Joseph2302: Did you mean to warn yourself? I mean, I no it's been a slow day, but-! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do it from time to time. It's a legitimate complaint, it just happens I was the first to notice it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have a chat

Use your talkpages to contact me, this conversation is awfully repetitive, and in far too many different places

Joseph,

You continue to mark my article for deletion. The only reason why I can see you doing this is due to poor referencing, to which I am in the process of fixing. If you have a problem with the article subject itself, or do not have positive opinions on Mr. Toner, Wikipedia is not the place to express it.

Sasha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaRearick (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my advice as a full explanation yesterday at Draft talk:James V. Toner- without decent sources, there is no evidence that he's notable. But you decided to ignore advice and publish it anyway. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~ Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sasha- I am happy to inform you that I have accepted your request to write the article on "James V. Toner". I completely understand your lack of experience in article writing and I am glad to help. Having written articles on James in the Cape Cod Times over the past two years, I will be able to incorporate knowledge of my own regarding the subject matter, and include references to my previous editorials on him which cannot be found online. Please send me the original draft you created, so I may make changes where needed and enhance the quality of the piece, <redacted> Many thanks! -R — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyPelkey (talk • contribs)

I've redacted the contact addresses so that they don't get spammed. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @RandyPelkey: what do you mean "I have accepted your request to write the article on James V. Toner"- are you being paid to create the articles? If so, I urge you to declare it, in accordance with our our Terms of Use, particularly those dealing with paid contributions without disclosure. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that his "knowledge of my own regarding the subject matter" will likely run into problems with WP:No original research. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on Draft talk:James V. Toner, I also said that I'm not sure he's currently notable enough whoever writes it- he appears to have only competed in local sports events. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Health Redemption challenge

Please have a little patience. The Health Redemption challenge is work in progress and could take a day or two for completion. There are considerable references and other notable materials. Healthredemption (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Healthredemption: It has already been deleted by @FreeRangeFrog:. The main problem wasn't that there were no references, it was the tone of the article, it contained lots of marketing speech, which isn't neutral tone or at all encyclopedic. If you want to recreate it, I recommend creating a draft article using Wikipedia:Article Wizard, noting that the tone must be neutral, per WP:NPOV and that you need to add reliable sources to show why it's notable, per WP:GNG and WP:ORG- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is good for this.
Also, do you work for the organisation, if so you have a conflict of interest, and WP:COI discourages you from creating the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note their account has been soft blocked, per WP:ISU. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My status on the Pleime campaign

Joseph, What is the status of my The Pleime campaign's submission. I can no more access the discussion of it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The submission is at Draft:The Pleime Campaign. As I've noted there, when I asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, they agreed that most of the content of this submission already exists at Battle of Ia Drang, because you added it to that page. There's no need for 2 articles about basically the same thing, which is why I declined it. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised to carry the discussion further if I strongly feel there should be a separate article. I did. What happens to the arguments that I advanced. Have they been addressed to? I cannot see the discussion site where I posted them anymore.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of it, you posted a counter-argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Draft help please which no-one has replied to- I have no subject knowledge which was why I asked there in the first place.
You also posted here, which has a reply at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 June 2#22:00:22, 2 June 2015 review of submission by Tnguyen4321- apparently The Pleime Campaign now redirects to Battle of Ia Drang. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my additional arguments for the creation of a separate article is missing. In the nutshell, I said it is irrational to redirect the whole (Pleime campaign) to one of its parts (battle of Ia Drang, siege of Plei Me); should it be the other way around? It is unfortunate that the matter had been given to unknowledgeable people to solve. It is a loss for Wikipedia. I will try to remedy the situation by editing further the Battle of Ia Drang. Thanks anyway for your attention on this matter.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Dempsey

Thanks-the original page just made it as "is a author" nothing of importance even mentioned! Wgolf (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem- not sure if they pass WP:NAUTHOUR, but winning a notable prize is a claim of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wgolf: In case you care, I've put it up for AfD, winning 1 prize was the only reliable source I could find. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:22:56, 10 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mokawn


HI, I have review my new article and rewrite it again. I don't know how to summit. Can you explain to me. Thank you in advance. momo 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


momo 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mokawn: I've readded my comments about the draft, there's now a button that says "Resubmit". However, since the last review, you have removed most of the references- Wikipedia required more references about the company, to show it's notable, but the draft now has fewer references (only 1). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help. I appreciate it. I will go through the links you sent me and adhere to it. Wikipediaelite (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hoped they help you in writing articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, You provided some comments on the DRAFT Ring Learning with Errors Key Exchange. Several contributors and I have added a more basic lead section for the article as you suggest. We have also added more explanatory material throughout the article. We look forward to further feedback or having the article progress for more review. Thanks for reviewing the article. We left comments on the talk page for the DRAFT but we are not sure what is the procedure for having you or someone look at the draft again Carvalho1988 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:49:32, 11 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Garthcat


I see you deleted my Draft:John C. Crowell page. I thought citing the quoted text was OK. I would like to remove or rewrite the text in question. Please give me another chance to edit and resubmit this article. Best Regards, Garth

Garthcat (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph as I have add The Facebook and Twitter account they are deleted but the account is verified by Facebook that the account is of barbara sumner burstyn . please check again and revert for the same

Barbara Sumner Burstyn on Facebook Barbara Sumner Burstyn on Twitter


Thanks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joseph2302&oldid=666432035"