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.

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 8 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warholtodiefor (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template Edit

Hello Joe. Heard your bot from other user. Not good at English , so i ask this question.

Are your bots can have new template edition appear in article (article that use template) immediately , without having wait sometime or having null edit or having WP:PURGE ? -- Comrade John (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Not immediately, but my bots can purge articles automatically on schedule in some (but not all) situations. Is there a specific template you're concerned about? --joe decker ^talk 14:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol me?

Hi Joe Decker, I saw here that you're able to set privileges like AutoPatrol, and I have a similar number of article creations (many are translations) and wonder if I should have this status, too. No worries if not. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done after some time being impressed by several of your article creations. The only thing that might have raised an eyebrow was a recent (and perhaps still in-progress) article translation that simply suggested looking to the source article for cites, in general, we need more direct verifiability than that. A small matter, your general adherence to WP:V (as well as other issues we look at with autopatrolled, particularly BLP and copyright) are entirely on-target. Enjoy! --joe decker ^talk 13:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you remember which one that was? Might've been in the middle and gotten distracted with something else. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pere John Sala, and you've already fixed it. :) Cheers, --joe decker ^talk 20:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entuity page for review

Hey Joe,

Thanks for reviewing the Entuity page - I've resubmitted with a couple of extra references. It's also worth noting that Gartner are the network management industries foremost authority - usually people listen to what they say. To be included on the Gartner list (as per reference 3: https://www.gartner.com/doc/3645363/market-guide-network-automation) along with the likes of HP, Dell, Cisco and Solarwinds, shows the notability Entuity holds in the space.

I hope this is taken into consideration.

Many thanks,

Matt