User talk:JSFarman/Archive 3

Copyright vio - Speedy Delete

Theonesean - Back again. I reviewed an article for the band My Darling Clementine (which I declined as an advertisement). It linked to Michael Weston King, which has multiple issues, one of which is a copyright violation: http://www.michaelwestonking.com/#/biography/ The way that I've interpreted the criteria for speedy deletion is that if an article has any content worth saving, it shouldn't be nominated for deletion. That may be the case with this one, although most of the article is directly from the bio. What should I do? Or can you mark it for deletion if it's appropriate? (Sorry to be asking you directly, but you're my unofficial mentor, and I'm not sure this belongs on the AfC talk page.) THANK YOU! JSFarman (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Generally, you're right about speedy deletion. However, copyvio can have serious legal implications for the Wikimedia Foundation, so every single copyvio must be marked for immediate deletion. For most others, however, speedy deletion only applies if there's nothing salvageable. Cheers, theonesean 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Theonesean - Just marked it. Thank you. (Why do I feel guilty???)JSFarman (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Guilty? Don't feel guilty. You just saved the WMF from a nasty potential lawsuit! Feel proud! theonesean 01:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bob Grogan Article Submission

Hello,

My first submission was declined due to the references not adequately showing the subject's notability. So I waited until large publications like ABC and the Chicago Tribune published articles on Bob Grogan running for Illinois Treasurer and resubmitted, thereby fulfilling the only reason provided for my submission's denial. Now you are saying that the newly submitted sources from ABC and the Chicago Tribune are not reliable sources and that "the references used don't support the majority of the article's content." How are ABC and the Chicago Tribune not reliable sources? Since the references don't support the majority of the article's content, I will literally delete everything except for the intro stating that Bob Grogan is running for Illinois Treasurer so that the sources only support the entire article submission--thereby making it impossible for anyone to claim the sources don't support the majority of the article.

I'm really confused about why this is continuing to be denied. I've created other wikipedia pages in the past with less known figures and they were approved with no problem at all. My other submission weren't of poltical figures, so I'm wondering if these denials are politically motivated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhale01 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiya,

I was commenting on this section of the article: "Grogan was born in Chicago, Illinois on February 23, 1968. He attended Hinsdale Central High School and later attended Miami University where he obtained a degree in Economics and Political Science. He is also an avid traveler having been to over 50 countries throughout Europe, Middle East, South America, and Asia. Bob and his wife Beth have three children: Anastasia, Robert, and Evelyn." The section is uncited.

I assure you my decline isn't at all politically motivated -- I'm diligent about neutrality, whether it's in an article I'm writing, or an article I'm reviewing.

Another reviewer might not have the same issue with the article - feel free to resubmit it! JSFarman (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lilling

There is one minor problem with this article, and it is minor; the Career section isn't paragraphed very well. I think it could do with being split into three or four paragraphs with possibly a couple of extra sub-headings. But yeah, aside from that, a very good article.--Launchballer 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer! Thank you. Editing it right now. JSFarman (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (Just made the changes - you're right - stronger article now.)

 Done--Launchballer 17:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Adam Lilling was accepted

Adam Lilling, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Launchballer 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tech

Your submission at AfC Patti Webster was accepted

Patti Webster, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

--Mdann52talk to me! 17:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, JSFarman. You have new messages at CAWylie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Okay, it's done. I linked one of your recent edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 - That was incredibly thorough. I didn't realize proposing a block would be so much work for you; thank you so much for doing it. JSFarman (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I was resisting. The worst thing is when you do all that work and it doesn't grab anyone, so nothing happens. There is a distinct possibility of that occurring here as this is restricted to an isolated area of the project. The one thing that might attract attention is the Smartway website, but users have to read far enough into my presentation to see that. If I didn't consider myself WP:INVOLVED, I'd take action on my own as I don't normally need permission to block a user. However, I changed too much content to take administrative action. We'll see what happens. Feel free to comment on the thread if you want to add something or just express an opinion. Any activity at all is usually helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 - I just added a comment in support of the block, although the example I used is almost more funny than egregious. It would be a huge drag if no action is taken. (I know this is irrelevant to the issue at hand - if I'm breaking policy by even mentioning it, please delete the comment - but one of the reasons I'm so passionate about this is that when I researched SmartWay I found a page on their site soliciting donations for victims of Hurricane Sandy through an organization which didn't appear to otherwise exist. It looks like the page has since been deleted. Maybe even today.)JSFarman (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 - It was done! (You probably already know that, but I just checked the thread.) You rule.JSFarman (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Some friendly advice about your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylfronia King. Your focus should not be on Billboard, but on the notability of the article. Although the history of the article may marginally influence some voters, technically it's irrelevant. Even if an article was created by an "evil" user, if it's a notable article, it's kept (limited exception if it was created by a user who was already blocked or banned).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Ahhhhh. Thank you. Still learning my way around. (This is why I generally stay away from contentious subjects.) JSFarman (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your change is much better (you forgot to sign it, though). Your response to advice is commendable. I wish other users were as willing to learn. I don't think this particular AfD will be contentious (unless we get weird comments from Billboard and his cronies), but, just so you know, AfD is one of the more contentious non-administrative forums around. Usually the barbs are reserved for the nominator, but even comments can be picked on mercilessly. The issue of keeping/deleting articles is something that tends to bring out strong feelings.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23- I just spent way too long reading discussions at AfD - I'm not going near there ever again. I'm going to have nightmares. (I appreciate your advice - THANK YOU - I made some early mistakes and I'm still regretting them.) JSFarman (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste your time regretting any mistakes. Just learn from them and move on. We all make them; I know I do. Did you notice that other editors at the AfD discussion mentioned the indefinite block of Billboard22? But also note that Black Kite, the nominator and an estimable administrator, did not mention anything about the promotional history, just addressed the notability guidelines. Your revised vote was much better and to the point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William J Craddock

When you put Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William J Craddock under review, a bug in the AFC Helper Script caused issues, so I took it off of review. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/archive%%0#Placing submissions under review blindly picks top template for discussion of this bug. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Small Luxury Hotels of the World

Hi, I was hoping you could provide clarification about your rejection comments for the Small Luxury Hotels of the World page.

You said: "Sources need to be independent of the subject; most of the references here are related to SLS". What does SLS stand for? Was it meant to say SLH (an acronym for the brand)? If so, is it that too many references are from the SLH website?

Many thanks. Kald2013 (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Kald2013 (talk) - Hiya, and thanks for getting in touch. Sorry about the confusion - SLS was a typo; it should have been SLH.

References need to be independent, and 6 of the 12 sources used in the article are from the SLH site; another is a press release. The Benzinga article is based on an interview - much of the content is preceded by phrases like "According to Kerr" and "Kerr says." The ABJ article appears to be an advertorial (which the publication describes in their advertising section). The SLH reference in the collaborative marketing book doesn't look significant (although I could be wrong on that, given that I've only seen limited results via a Google books search), and Leaders is another interview. The Economia reference is solid, given that there's editorial in addition to the interview.

I'm familiar with SLH and I have no doubt that the company is notable -- you just need to add references. This is a good ref as is this - it took some digging to find them, but they're out there.

If you'd like, hit me back after you've added some refs - I'll be happy to review the article again. JSFarman (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for explaining, and for giving example references. I've made some amends: I've removed references from the SLH site (I've left in one from a related site, joinslh.com, as that is the only place that describes exactly what the company does!). I have also removed the less reliable news sources, and added more reliable ones: Forbes, NYT, The Telegraph and another Economia article. Please let me know if you think further amends are needed.

Many thanks Kald2013 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Kald2013 (talk - Hello again. The referencing looks much better - you should resubmit. (I'm not offering to review it myself because I'm conflicted about the content - I think it borders on advertising - but someone else might feel differently and I'd love to see you get the article published. 97.90.153.248 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark Williams Thomas

Hi, I hope you can clarify your rejection of Mark Williams Thomas for lack of good sources. It may not be apparent to an American but the Jimmy Savile story, and the consequent change in attitudes to historic sex offences on minors has been one of the major stories of the last year in the UK. Indeed the London Press Awards felt it was the most important story of the year and gave MWT their Scoop of the Year award for revealing the scandal. Obviously the draft article could be longer and better sourced but the BBC, Guardian and Press Gazette are all good sources as it is. The draft article would soon be improved no end by other contributors. I don't have time to write a longer, better referenced article myself at the moment but I think MWT would be a serious omission for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan904 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan904 talk Hi. We actually know about Jimmy Savile over here! My decline on the article wasn't about the significance of the subject. I agree that others would flesh out the article but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be published as is. I'll find more refs later today - take a look at it in the morning and if you're good with it, resubmit. JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan904 talk - I did an edit, but there are a GAZILLION sources that can be used and I don't have time to cite this more thoroughly - you can resubmit if you want but I don't think it's anywhere near complete.JSFarman (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ageless Engines improvements review

Sept 22 Hello JSFarman : Thanks for taking the time to look at the submission and your kind comment that it is an interesting subject. I made substantial revisions and additions to the references, as you suggested. This is my first submission. I tried to respond to you but was unable to link the article, so I hit resubmit with my new version.

Another reviewer rejected it saying it sounded like an advertisement. I have revised it again and added many iimprovements to the description about engine history and development and how it relates to the model engine machining community. Can you look at the newest version? Do you have any suggestions how I can describe the work done to miniaturize aircraft radial engines to address concerns about it soundin like an advertisement?  

I do not know how to link my article to this message. Can you help? https://en.wikipedia.org/ageless engines Is this correct?

Here is my email:

peggy.kreimer@steppingstonesohio.org 

Thanks, By12lisa By12lisa (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by By12lisa (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

HiBy12lisa (talk)- you need to go back through the article and get rid of any of the words that hype or promote the company - "accomplished" is one of them - there are a few scattered throughout the submission. The referencing is much better but it *does* read a bit like an advertisement! JSFarman (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lewis David Eigen

Thanks for the review of my article. There are references for much of the information that I have and I can include them. But it raises a few questions which I would appreciate some further guidance. This is my first attempt and although I have done published book reviews, I am new to this process. So thanks for helping out a newcomer.

1. What is the implication of the policy for information that is deducible regarding references? For example I described the subject as a "polymath". I concluded that because I deduced it from the fact that he has scholarly publications in leading journals in a number of different and typically unrelated fields and I included a sample list of his many publications. I also noted that the term "polymath" was used in many Wikipedia biographies and I couldn't find one where that was footnoted with a reference. Are deductions of this type OK?

2. I can provide references for some of the material in my draft but by no means all. I was trying to weigh comprehensiveness against documentation. I gather from your criticism that it is preferable to have a shorter article of only documentable material that may leave out material facts than have everything covered at the expense of documentation.

3. How does one document vital statistics about an individual, ie birth, education, children, employment, etc. I had contacted the subject and told him that I was doing an article about him and he assisted in two ways. He sent me his curriculum vitae (academic professional resume), but I did not check each and very fact. I did check out his Doctorate at Columbia university however as I saw a criticism that some Wikipedia articles were describing phony degrees. I also did two interviews with him. When I do scholarly articles, I document interviews with a footnote citing the date, place and method of the interview. Should I follow the same interview footnoting as I do for American Psychological Association Journal Articles? I also talked with two of his colleagues, and they gave me some of the facts. Should I document those interviews as well?

4. I see that it would be better to concentrate on his academic and intellectual ideas which are very well documented, but he has done stuff I know little about. He even wrote some orchestral fugues, dramatic incidental music for a Molier play, a wedding march, and some chorales for a Church. I am a musical clod and have no idea if these are trash or good. He is not a serious composer and there were no reviews of any of his music. However, I thought it interesting that a high powered scientist, executive, government official should even have ever written music. Should I just forget about things like that for which I have no documentation and/or competency?

Again, thanks in advance for helping me. I have been using Wikipedia for so many years now as my MAJOR reference tool, that I thought that I should start to contribute. I was using some of Eigen's work professionally, and looked him up in Wikipedia and was surprised to not find an article, though he and his work is cited by, Wikipedia Articles on various subjects. So I thought I would try and fill that hole as my first contribution. I now see a shorter, more intellectual article where the ideas and material and disagreements can be documented from his published work and that of others. I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Fresius (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ned Fresius (talk - sorry for the delay, and forgive the brevity of my response! Your questions are great, but I think there's probably someone else who would be better to answer your questions - I'm not strong on Academics.

My comment about the references was in regard to the biographical information - you haven't cited any sources. See: WP: VERIFY and WP: BLP - The article is well written, neutral - it even LOOKS good - but the referencing is essential. I did Jennifer Aaker - check out the citations - hopefully it'll help! JSFarman (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand after I read the Jennifer Asker article. I can do that. In the academic world, we do not cite things that are not Refereed Journals--those are the only acceptable references. But if all published documents and websites are allowed, I think i could provide the references to 80 percent of what I wrote. I will do that and drop the other 20 percent until I can find references for them. I am very busy this week and will probably get to it next week. Thanks again or your help. Ned Fresius (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brown Institute for Media Innovation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaws (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

AFC/Ageless Engines

Hello JS,

I appreciate your time and help in getting the Ageless Engines entry up to snuff. 
I hope you can look at the latest icarnation just resubmitted. I have made sure references are from outside sources and reworked much of the history and development information to deal with concerns about sounding commercial. Thanks for any additional suggestions, thoughts or comments.  You are a peach.  - By12lisa By12lisa (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, is anyone working on the Irobot chatroom? I need help with my submission. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Kohn (talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Jessie Hill

I just added 3-4 new references to Jessie as a director. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayrockmedia (talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/AFerry

Thanks for you for your help and taking the extra time to write the comment about why the reference aren't up to scratch. I'll remove PR references and any references that are essentially made by AFerry (press releases, about us) and only leave the independent newspaper reviews. After doing this should I go back to you or resubmit? Also I don't have much time for this now is my article for creation in danger of deletion after a certain period of time of not resubmitting? Thanks once again especially for re-clarifying - to be honest I could have guessed that was the issue anyway! This is harder than I thought! A lot! But I do think we have enough independent references (not PR or based on PR). The Daily Mail article actually has some quite negative points about us! GoldenClockCar (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Helllo GoldenClockCar (talk), and thanks for the thanks. It took me a day to respond because I was trying to find out exactly how long a declined article could live at AfC before being deleted. Never found it, but I think it's six months. It won't be deleted anytime soon. When you're ready to resubmit it, you should go through the general AfC process, but leave a message here as well. I'm not sure I'll still be reviewing - it's incredibly time-consuming -- but if I am, I'll take a look at it. Thanks for getting in touch. JSFarman (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello JSFarman, okay thanks very very much for taking the time to look for that information. Good to know it won't disappear for a while in the AfC stage! Have a great day. I'll do as you say when it comes to resubmitting. Francis (real name) GoldenClockCar (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)