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.
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Request to see deleted page.
Hi! I saw you on a list of users who will consider requests to see deleted content. I created a page this week Chess Today. I didn't know it had previously existed until I saw on its talk page it says it existed ten years ago but was deleted. I think it does now meet notability requirements and I've put a few reasons on the talk page. Anyway, I was wondering if I could be allowed to see the page from ten years ago in case there's anything I can add to the new version. If you think this is a reasonable request, please could you just paste whatever existed onto my talk page? If not, sorry to bother you. Thank you for your consideration. Imnikrist (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- No trouble at all, the old revisions now appear as the oldest three items in the article history. --joe deckertalk 14:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much indeed. That is extremely helpful and kind. It has yielded (indirectly) at least two more possibly useful references. Thanks again and also for your speediness. :) Imnikrist (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Steve Smoger undelete request
Hello,
On 10 June 2014 you have deleted the article page Steve Smoger based on "Notability of boxing refereee has not been established."
The character is an IBHOF referee class of 2015. [1] It appears that there is a substantial coverage of the character in G news [2], Google Books [3] as well as other sources online. Please undelete the page, so it can improved if it was 'poorly' written at the start. Thank you. (Parviziskender (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC))
- Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 19. —Cryptic 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Parviziskender:, I"m restoring it, there appears to be substantial new evidence of notability. I would appreciate a few good sources being added to the biography soon, thanks. I'll leave a note at the DRV. --joe deckertalk 18:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this. The article will be improved in the coming weeks. Parviziskender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- My pleasure. I think it's now in at least a bit better shape than it was before the deletion. --joe deckertalk 04:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
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 deckertalk 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 21:35:19, 22 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dapifo
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
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 deckertalk 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
23:40:34, 22 June 2017 review of submission by Warholtodiefor
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