User talk:GregJackP/Archive 6

Your new article

 * Great piece, Greg... this is a question I've had of other articles for review - how do I verify an article that uses solely books for reference? Honestly, I've seen your work and I know you are thorough and operate in good faith. I'd be willing to take your word for it and push it through, but do please address that concern so that I can know how to handle this issue in the future. Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES  16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes you can find it on GBooks, other than that you have to either find it at a library or post a request on one of the boards/projects here to see if someone has the book(s). Most will be on GBooks.   GregJackP   Boomer!   16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll also see if I can find some urls to add to the refs - I know that Kappler is online at Okla State Univ, but I'll see what else I can find too.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank youCheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES  18:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Richard Prickett, 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 are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Snowysusan 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Speedy deletion declined: LaMuff
Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LaMuff, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A7-person is for stuff like my sweet grandmother, or the funny guy down the street. A7-Band is for garage bands that never had any kind of following or success. Having your album reviewed in an independent source clearly puts LaMuff beyond that.''' Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rallye Des Pyrenees
Thanks GregJackP for your kind help on the Tandon motorcycles article I submitted. Can you tidy up the Rallye Des Pyrenees article I've also submitted, please ? It could benefit from your magic touch ! Link is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rallye_Des_Pyrenees I got into a bit of a muddle pressing save before I'd even started but it's all in order now, I think. Cheers. 77.101.71.153 (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks again, GregJackP ! Hopefully both articles will be sucessful ! 77.101.71.153 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Narrative Music deletion discussion
Since you nominated The Narrative Music for deletion, significant improvements have been made to the article. You might want to look it over and see if your views have changed in light of these edits. DES (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Autumn In Disguise
Hello GregJackP, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Autumn In Disguise, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The UK tour and main stage festival appearances are enough to pass A7. If you still think this should be deleted you should bring it to AfD.''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 06:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Cooperative Network Page Inquiry
So I am new to Wikipedia, but the page that I submitted, Cooperative Network, was deleted due to a copyright violation. The information that is said to be copyrighted was the seven principles of a cooperative, which is a universal set of principles used and followed by all cooperatives. I cited my company's website, but they are also on over 300 other webpages. Is there any way to challenge the deletion and get my page back? Or is it gone forever, and I have to retype it? I would appreciate some help! Thanks! ekappelman Aug 8, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekappelman (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would contact an admin by putting on your talk page, and explain it to him or her the same way. Only admins can restore deleted articles. You can ask them to put it back in Articles for creation where experienced editors will review it and offer suggestions before it is moved to article space. I would also leave a comment on the restored version, so another reviewer doesn't think it is a copyright vio, or ask the admin for their advice on it. Also, remember to sign your posts with ~ - that way it is easier for other editors and admins to respond to you. Good luck. GregJackP  Boomer!   14:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud
You self-closed this as a G11, but it seems the G11 was declined. I reopened it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, the second G11 was declined. What happened is the page creator kept deleting the CSDs on the page, so I AFD'd it, then an admin CSD/G11 the first version.  Then the creator re-introduced the page (exactly the same as the one deleted), and I tagged it for GSD/G11.  The second G11 was declined by an editor that removed a bunch of the promo stuff.  It is still not notable, so I AFD'd it a second time.


 * Of course all of this was within the last 24 hours...see Articles for deletion/Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud (2nd nomination) Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor changes
I have made some minor changes in your post in Questia application page, hope it is okay with you! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. As a matter of fact, I was just leaving you a thank you on your talk page for fixing my error.   GregJackP   Boomer!   22:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * . It is not very uncommon. I must be careful too, but I use three tildes to insert name and talk page link, so, I don't think it'll be a problem for me, Yet, better safe than sorry (talking about me) -- Tito Dutta   ✉  22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebob76 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC-5)

Nomination of Eric Delude for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Delude is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eric Delude until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ubelowme U Me  13:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebob76 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC-5)

Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside GAN
Sure, go ahead. I had always intended to take it there ... I had a very good feeling about it when it was done. There might be a few more sources to add, but I think I have it pretty well covered (although I'd like to have a section discussing the briefs, which I could get with help from the Supreme Court archive, I think).

My mischievous idea would be to get it to FA and then, assuming I could get a nice still life photo of a bong, rolling papers and a regular pot pipe to use as an image, have it be the main page article next April 20. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As an addendum I would note that I find it pretty flattering when someone else decides to nominate an article I've been the primary editor on for GA. This is the fourth time that's happened. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It was meant to be flattering - it is a very good article. I've only done this a couple of times.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's been five times now that I think of it. New Coke was the first; it's since been delisted, as has U.S. Route 9 in New York. Anna Wintour and The Devil Wears Prada have survived multiple reviews and are listed still. The Miracle at the Meadowlands failed, as I told the nominator it would. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Phi Sigma Nu
Good references for Phi Sigma Nu. I still this it's borderline non-notable with only 7 chapters, but with those 2 book sources I think you've convinced me enough.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian languages and resources
Hey, hello again, what's up? Most probably you proposed a deletion in this article which I feel has been removed without resolving. On the other hand I think I can clean up the article and add some reliable references (Well, I am contesting the deletion, but I am not happy the way the template has been removed). If we do not have a similar article, it might be interesting! Upto you! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, how are you doing? Yes, I PROD'd the article, mostly because almost all of the claims were backed by refs from Wikipedia - the rest all were dead links.  It just looked like WP:OR to me, since there was nothing that showed any sources were saying anything to support it.  I saw that the creator removed the PROD, but wasn't going to proceed further.  Right now it is good as a list-class.  I think it would be great if you can clean it up, and you would not see any problems from me.   GregJackP   Boomer!   19:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ralph D. Sawyer
Thank you for your message. In response to your proposed deletion, I have proposed that the article is moved to my userspace in order that I may expand and establish the article and its validity. I have only proposed this and not yet carried it out, in order to demonstrate adherence to the spirit of deletion review, now that it has been initiated. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not have a problem with moving it to userspace.  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Free and Equal Edits
Hey there Greg, I took your advice and removed some unnecessary citations and also added more sources to make the organization more notable. Let me know what you think! Jbrace (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Review help
Hello, thank you for reviewing my article. I was wondering if you could give me some constructive feedback as to how I can improve the article to get it to be accepted? Thank you

(A.brinkter (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

New article creation
Dear GregJackP, Thank you for pointing out the absolute obvious ("way too many references by Faria") that escaped me when referencing the entry. I will do what you asked and resubmit. Thank you for your critique, Sciencescholar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencescholar (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing of Speedy Deletion tag on Vive la Difference page
G'day GregJackP, Thanks for pointing my error to me - I did not realize the tag was what defined the status of the page, and should not be removed; I assumed it to be cosmetics only and the status was saved outside the page's content. I started yesterday on Wikipedia and this was my first attempt. I'll be more careful in the future. Regarding this page's status, I am waiting on the upcoming band's announcement of their participation as contestants in a TV music show here in Australia, which was the basis for me creating the page in the first place. I assumed this gave sufficient grounds for establishing notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbejac (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Resubmission
Dear GregJackP,

I appreciate your advise, which I have followed. I have deleted most of Dr Faria's own articles and used references written by other authors in its stead. I reduced the number of references from the whopping number of 128 to the essential 61. None of the references that now remain were self-published. They were all published in peer-reviewed medical or scientific journals, and the links where available take you directly to the websites for those professional journals or to the NIH.gov website for PubMed. I believe including these references is essential to document Dr. Faria's bona fides for entry into Wikipedia. I have looked at other entries on scholars in Wikipedia and have modified my entry accordingly.

The vast majority of the references are articles written in major newspapers, legal briefs, and written by other authors in reliable sources.

As I said before, sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees or understand why the initial entry was turned down. I understood, agreed, and have corrected the problems.

Sciencescholar--Sciencescholar (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

CSD tag
FYI: I changed your tag on User:Sanmachihito from a G10 to a G3 (hoax). Have a good one. NTox · talk 04:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Was that Canvassing at ARS?
Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was hoping that someone could find some other refs and save the article.  GregJackP   Boomer!   10:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference
I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Borialis
Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Borialis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Signing to Capitol Records is a good enough claim to pass A7. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment at AfD discussion
— Northamerica1000(talk) 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Glenn Aird
Is he using multiple accounts? Peridon (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it - blocked DJ MAGOO and warned Glenn Aird. Peridon (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) It looks that way, but he's a new user I believe. I put the 2nd acct name at the end of the warning.  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * DJ Magoo rings a bell somewhere. (No, I don't think he's related to Quasimodo...). Peridon (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of a user talk-page I started :-)
Hi GregJackP. You beat me to it. Technically, this might possibly fall under the remit of WP:MFD, but thankfully Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Thanks, mate!--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. I've always used CSD on those - IAR and it's faster.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

submitted article
Hi GregJackP,

If you don't mind, I would like a clarification about a recently submitted article about the American College of Veterinary Surgeons. The article was declined, and you commented that it relied heavily upon self-published sources, however all of the references are from independent sources. Most refer to the American Veterinary Medical Association, which is a completely separate entity from the American College of Veterinary Surgeons. I am particularly confused when I look at an article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Surgeons, the human medical equivalent of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons, which has essentially no independent references. Please help me understand this disparity. Thank you for your help, Mgvet (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be glad to explain. The references have the following problems:
 * FN1 does not mention the ACVS at all.
 * FN2 is a dictionary definition, not in-depth coverage.
 * FN3 is self-published.
 * FN4 is only trivial mention.
 * FN5 does not mention the ACVS at all.
 * FN6 does not mention the ACVS at all.
 * FN7 does not mention the ACVS at all.
 * FN8 does not mention the ACVS at all.
 * FN9 does not mention the ACVS at all.
 * FN10 is self-published.
 * FN11 does not mention the ACVS at all.
 * FN12 is self-published.
 * When a source does not mention the subject of the article, I can't really consider that it demonstrates that the subject has notability. Only one of the AVMA references mentioned the ACVS at all, and it was a trivial mention.  Most of the other sources were self-published.  The fact that other stuff exists is not a good argument for creating your article.  I have no doubt that the ACVS is notable, all you need to do is find references that show it is notable.  This is the same thing that other reviewing editors have mentioned.  Hope this helps.   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

American College of Surgeons
Considering the importance of the organization, instead of deletion, I reverted it to an old noncopyvio stub and revision-deleted the later versions. I'm going to go back and add some incidental material that got deleted but is OK.  DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I wouldn't have even noticed it but for an other stuff comment on an AfC I declined.  I should have thought of reverting it back myself.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Justin Matthew
Hit GregJackP,

looking at what's left from the article: the formulation 'is the video maker of' is not from me, and the important stuff is left out that shows how he influenced in this case, and how his work in converging the 'joke video' evironment towards 'real TV', a trend that has started when google acquired youtube, google seems to go towards being the new 'cable' or 'satellite'.

now it reads just like an advertisement.

I tried to run compares between versions but cannot find the editing points when the article was reduced to an advertisement.

btw, while Matthews does take part in filming and production, he is not 'the video maker', and someone slipped a typo 'Dylar' instead of 'Dylan'.

sources: there are much more now, thx to reviewers who added material

however: the picture (being already on Wikipedia) has been taken out. Yep, might not look 'photogenic' but when I asked that's what I got as 'official photo to use'. Reason for the picture vanishing from the infobox?

I'd be grateful to see reasons, e.g., 'deleted paragraph because....' not just 'cleaning up' and missing half the article after that.

From the sources: that's about all you get on Internet, and to measure a person, the interaction measuring klout, kred, and others are probably a good indicator (e.g., lady gaga has no 'klout' although she has Millions of followers: there's no interaction going on, just publication).

There is a print article that underlines the change from 'joke vid channel' to serious education, pub sci, and of course revenue stream. I will try to make it show more that the revenue stream started after Matthew started to bring it out of the mere jokes area. Many do this, few succeed.

Can you give me a feedback regarding the deletion of large portions (compare to the uploaded version, after the ref bot went through)? Who did it? I see no comments.

trying.... he does belong here, he is a trailblazer in changing our media environment Mike (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nittmann (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask whoever deleted material for the reason why, all I did was review the proposed submission and decline it. The reason is self-explanatory, it reads like an advert and not like an encyclopedia entry. You'll have to show notability using reliable sources to get it into WP. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks, at least this time the text is intact and not deleted without comments. Someone did add more links, was this you? This is a new media transformation that this guy is working in, so many links will have to be 'new media'. Bios are nearly always 'new media'. I did not intend to do any 'commercial' speak, the guy does have merits: he introduced professional production and management into what started as a hobby, and representative for all such channels, showed this can be a viable enterprise. Google is just now starting to try to silence cable and satellite by moving 'real' entertainment (not just little clips but full length movies and albums) to youtube. This guy is a trailblazer in this, and I bet after the short time he turned that one around he will do a couple of more. He is influential and his ideas are listened to: he is not just a 'publisher', there is interaction, which is expressed in the internet scores that a couple of companies are now bringing out to separate the nonsense breeding lone shooters from the interacting people others listen to. Reliable sources: print media are entirely missing the new developing trends on the Internet, as is TV. Only the film industry seems to have gotten the message and plans to stop movie theater releases altogether. I'll comment on each link and why, and I'll see to reformulate things.

Did you add extra external links and references to the article? You did just look at it and not edit/add ? Just asking to make sure. Someone adds stuff, and yes, some of the added links to not belong, Dylan's home page has nothing to do here.

Mike Mike (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You can check the page history to see who did what. It is still on the promotional side.   GregJackP   Boomer!   10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi GregJackP, just fyi: I got the password for that jmhhacker account (using it right now) and the approval to remove that version of the page. I have placed a 'speedy deletion - consensual' on top of the page.

With time I might look at the other version, to refomulate it in a more clear manner what this represents in the larger context, and why this guy is in fact a pioneer (nobody ever said he is 'the only one', but he is one with a voice people listen to: this guy meets the definition of 'agent of change'). Sure, the encyclopedic way, still learning, doing some others to get a better feel, then coming back to that one.

Jmhhacker (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

... just to make sure, the last entry was by Nittmann via Jmhhacker ... Jmhhacker (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Article submission
Hello GregJackP, I appreciate the time it has taken to review the page I have been trying to get approved. I have been constantly trying to make it better and your comments are much appreciated. However, you said that I should get rid of some of the more promotional items "like the listing of all the areas of law." I do not really feel that this is a promotional item, what areas of law that a law firm practices is an important part of what a particular law firm is and what it does. Many other law firm pages have this feature and I sometimes feel that this page is, quite arbitrarily, being held to a much higher standard than many other law firm pages.

I have listened to your advice and I have sought advice in the help chat room. I honestly have tried my best to write this from a nuetral point of view and I have avoided inroducing a "Cases" section for just that reason. I would encourage you to look over the pages of comparable sized [100-400 attorneys] firms in the 2012 list of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers (Which can be found in the opening paragraph of the page I am trying to edit). I think you would better understand my frustration and maybe see that listing the practice areas is common, if not standard. I will be looking forward to your feedback, as I am still supremely interested in cooperating as much as is necesary to get the article approved.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Crowe_%26_Dunlevy — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechD472 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The last time I looked, you list the practice areas twice, once in the infobox, once in the article. Not all the firms in the list you cite have practice areas in their article and if they do, they limit it to general areas. See Stoel Rives, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, and Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. The last is probably the best of the bunch as far as NPOV goes. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   11:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made the change to the practice group listing in the infobox. I narrowed it down to three departments that encompass most of the practice areas the firm is involved with. I left the full list in the body of the article since it is linked directly to a reliable outside source with proper citation. This is a similar format to the example article you listed above.

I noticed that when you denied the page most recently you still said "It also needs to be balanced with the controversial information on the firm, such as Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham." However, I mentioned above that I have avoided introducing a cases section in an effort to ensure that I remain neutral. Very few other firm pages mention cases [not even the firms you specifically mentioned above mention specific cases]. Since all of information in the article is correct and much of it is corroborated by outside sources that are reliable, I do not think a cases section is necessary to create a neutral article. Since you did not address this above I have resubmitted the page for creation.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechD472 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi. Watchlist error? NTox · talk 04:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry. Fat fingers on a tablet. I'll fix it, if you haven't already. GregJackP  Boomer!   04:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha; no big deal. I'm not offended. I can take care of it. NTox · talk 04:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say "Good work!" with respect to Articles for deletion/Wendy Riva (2nd nomination). This is the kind of AfD that is a pleasure to find because almost all the work is done already and all that's left is to decide whether to agree or disagree with the nominator. In this case, it was easy to agree. I work with lawyers who couldn't make such a useful and terse precis. Well done! Ubelowme U Me  23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reads like an Advertisement
Hi JackP

I recently resubmitted an article for creation. It was the third submission. The first was denied by yourself for "reading like an advertisement," (fair enough) so I pared it way back and tried again. To be denied by someone else for inadequate sourcing. (Fair enough again). I supplied better sources, and have again been told by yourself that the article reads like an advert. Would you mind elaborating on which aspects read like an advert? I have found many similar articles about tech startups that are far more pithy and promotional than mine. To me it reads plain facts (rather blandly) about how the company was founded and with what technology, so I'd appreciate a bit more feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vend_(software)

I recognize you are incredibly busy, so any words you can throw at me regarding how to fix my article will be very appreciated. Honest. :) --T.l.benedict (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "after clients requested new ways to manage inventory and reporting. Vaughan claims he could not find one, so he wrote one. "Retailers were using old technology, closed systems and it was really hard to get data out of them," Vaughan explained." How is this relevant to the software?  This is a PR technique that is becoming more popular, basically an interview or quotes on why the thingamajig was invented, etc.


 * "Launched as a prototype with beta users, sales increased by 30% each month and Vend secured funding from angel investors Sam Morgan and Southgate Labs.", "injection of capital", and "One year later Vend secured further funding from Point Nine Capital." How are these statements relevant to the "History" of the software?  "Angel investors" is a WP:PEACOCK phrase, which, while technically accurate, portray a different message to the non-business layperson.  None of this is relevant to how the software actually works, nor is the software notable due to the funding.


 * I didn't find a problem with the API section, so long as it is not overly promotional. Say what the system does, briefly, matter-of-fact, without puffery.


 * On the comment about other articles? See other stuff.  Good luck,  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. That is very helpful, thank you. I'm very sorry to have perpetrated an "other stuff" argument! May I ask one follow-up question? The funding seems to be an integral part of several tech start-up entries (like Shopify and Xero). Do you recommend I remove it completely, or just de-peacock the language? Cheers, sir. --T.l.benedict (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would make a comment that the company obtained startup funding in (whatever year) and leave it at that.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Changes made. Fingers crossed. Thanks for your help and have a good day. Or night. Or, you know. Enjoy your time zone. --T.l.benedict (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye poke
— Northamerica1000(talk) 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: WebMobiNetworks
Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of WebMobiNetworks, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion Notice: Global_Allergy_Network
Hi, Just want to write my opinion that you are not right regarding deletion of the article of Global Allergy Network. It is very important to give public access to such information in an open way. I agree it needs some work, but it can not be done in a blink of an eye. It will take some time and some work to correct and improve it.

04:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you understand the purpose of the Wikipedia project. Wikipedia does not exist to give the public information, it exists as an encyclopedia.  For inclusion, an entity needs to be notable, supported by independent reliable and verifiable sources.  The article on Global Allergy Network does not show the required notability.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a case for Terry Williams
Hi, you deleted a case inserted, telling it was a different case, beacause held un Virginia. As it may be difficult to make the connection, I add a new text about the same case. Please chexk the names before to delete it, and apologize for my broken english, if any. Regards, Deuxtroy (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did delete the case, and, as my edit summary noted, it was not the same Terry Williams. Since the case I deleted dealt with a completely different murderer, a completely different state (Virginia), and was completely unrelated to the Pennsylvania Terry Williams, it was not appropriate for that article.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, just read the text before to delete. It is the same Terry Williams, the same murdered Amos Norwood. Virginia Court is a court for state collateral relief, that's why. Regards, Deuxtroy (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the same Terry Williams. If you look at the text of the case, the only thing in common is that both murderers are named Terry Williams.  The case you cite is a United States Supreme Court Case.  The prior history path is as follows:
 * Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),
 * Williams v. Taylor, 163 F.3d 860 (4th Cir. 1998)
 * Williams v. Taylor, CA-97-1527-A (E.D. Vir. 1997)(not reported)
 * Williams v. Warden, 487 S.E.2d 194 (Vir. 1997)
 * Williams v. Commonwealth, 360 S.E.2d 361 (Vir. 1987)
 * These are all Virginia cases dealing with the murder of Harris Thomas Stone in Danville, Virginia by Terry Williams (of Virginia). The article is about the murders of Herbert Hamilton and Amos Norwood by Terry Williams (of Pennsylvania).  The cases have nothing to do with one another.  BTW, I did read the ref you had added before I deleted it, and FWIW, no Virginia court has jurisdiction over a Pennsylvania case.  Regards.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very sorry. I was sure it was about Amos Norwood since yesterday. I correct the fr:WP too. Please excuse me for the time spent on it. Regards. Deuxtroy (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of case from Terry Williams article
Please do not continue to add this unrelated case back to the article. As I stated on my talkpage, it is not related to the article in Pennsylvania. A check of Lexis and Westlaw both confirm this. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   02:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this means ? I apologised for the error. And did not try to add the case again. I cannot understand the meaning of this message. Deuxtroy (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we were both posting at the same time. There is no problem as far as I'm concerned.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Crow Dog
Congratulations on the article becoming featured! I am always glad to see other great law-related articles using the Bluebook style. One last nit: I do recommend against the use of "Id." and "supra." As I note in this work in progress, they are not really compatible with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia (and, by my reading, are optional under the BB). Savidan 11:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll fix that.  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Idaho
That's fine, but I thought the name in the US Reports was Idaho v. United States. Savidan 14:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. Can you move it to the correct title over the redirect?  Or merge it?  Or how do we fix my screwup?   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since my version was a stub, I deleted it and moved yours. Savidan 15:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR
By the way, you're at 3RR, so please be careful. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, GregJackP, I had no idea about your editing restrictions and appeal. I do believe that your involvement in this case was very helpful as directed toward dispute resolution (the RfC) and improving the article by restoring sourced and relevant materials. I thought about commenting on arbitration pages, but decided it would not help given my own editing history, and I do not really know anything about your previous editing to make a qualified statement. Good luck, My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Your sig
Hi GregJackP

You may not be aware of this, but Signatures specifically recommends not using markup which increases the size of text. Your sig sets font-size:110%, which has the disruptive effect the guidelines recommend against.

I'm sure that you intended no disruption, but please can you remove the size-increasing markup from your sig? Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the policy states. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   18:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It says " Avoid markup such as and (or more) tags (which produce big text) ".
 * Your markup also produces big text. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It also says to be sparing with colors, and to have a contrast level of at least 5:1 for text, and according to the "Colour Contrast Check" using #996600/#F8FCFF (default), your colors, you are not in compliance (contrast is 4.78:1). I'll change mine, but it is not good form to criticize someone for a problem (i.e., a sig) that you are also in violation of.   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Greg, I've watched you over time, mostly with a sympathetic view of some troubles you've had. Gotta say, though, this dialog shows a poor attitude on your part. I urge you to do all in your power to be collaborative; this could possibly reduce difficulties. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, but it irritated me based on the comments she made to me at a CFD, basically accusing me of bad faith. Then, when I explained, still in a good humor, she was dismissive, and then goes after my sig.  I have no problem with correcting something that I need to fix, but don't throw a drink in my face and tell me it's raining.  GregJackP   Boomer!   22:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see; I had not looked for the build-up. Thanks for your patience with me. Yopienso (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. I do appreciate it when someone stops by to be helpful, like you did. I do need a rap on my hard head from time to time, and I hope that if you see me do something stupid, you'll let me know.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, please give me a heads-up as needed. Yopienso (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Greg, thank you.

I hadn't spotted that glitch with mine, and I'm ashamed to have been making things tougher for people with vision problems, who have it tough enough already. I found the contrast checker, and upped my contrast to over 10. I'm glad I came here, cos I learnt something useful.

Irony doesn't work well in ASCII text. Your comment may have been intended as a joke, but that wasn't how it came across ... and in a discussion related to one of the big faultlines in the modern world, it's a very risky approach. there are a lot of tensions about the Islamic world's relationship with the rest of it, and a lot of people on both sides are twitchy.

And Yopienso, don't be too hard on Greg. He has just given me a bit of help that nobody else has offered in the 4 years orso that I have used that sig thousands of times. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is very gracious of you, and yes, irony doesn't always come across well. I'm probably a little sensitive right now and over-reacted to your initial comments, and if so, I apologize.   GregJackP   Boomer!   00:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Greg. We all have those days where we are a little more prickly than we'd like to be, but if you stepped in that direction it was only a little step.
 * Good talking to you. :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm Afraid You Are Mistaken About My Edits
Read Roggio's own words for yourself and don't just assume they are "controversial." One-sided opinions of others also are not of value. To erase the fact that Roggio is not of controversy is like erasing the fact that Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon. It needs to be known he is not exactly reliable.75.72.35.253 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but until you get consensus to add it back in, it is not appropriate. If you want to restore it, gain consensus.   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atiya
I was just wondering about this submission. I don't see any comments about why it was declined. Am I missing something. Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in the template itself. The article looked like it copied an existing article as a template, went about halfway down on the new subject and then quit.  It left quite a bit of information about the original subject.  In any event, at that time it was not ready due to that problem.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh ok thanks for the clarification. The template wasn't really clear so I just thought I would ask. Kumioko (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page. Happy reviewing!  TheSpecialUser TSU
 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:GregJackP
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows: The restriction imposed on in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Deletion of Article Snap Limited
Hey GregJackP, I work for this company and am currently in the process of getting this all together. Feel free to delete the page if you feel that it is necessary and I can sandbox it until it's ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanmloveday (talk • contribs) 12:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Morning GregJackP, AndyWillis111 here. I'm curious to learn why you decline to discuss the merits of the Birch Mountain material on the Brookfield site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyWillis111 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Tip
Here's a little tip GregJackP:

You created your Wikipedia account on 22 November 2006. On your userpage, anywhere on your userbox, you might like to write the following source:

If you do that, this will appear on your userbox:

See you later! :) CURTAINTOAD!  02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Helen Baldwin
Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I deleted Helen Baldwin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Gurjant Singh Budhsinghwala
Hi GregJackP, its a kind notification that article Gurjant Singh Budhsinghwala has been completely re-phrased. It does NOT violate any wikipedia polices related to copyright issues any more. This article has several world level references. Sikhiwiki aricle did not have any reference. I have enjoyed working on this article today and I request you to please help improving the NPOV issues this article may have. Also, kindly help restructuring the references in the way the references appear on there wikipedia articles.

I am going to delete 'speedy deletion' request as copyright infringement issue is not there any more. Thanks and Kind Regards.--99.179.23.228 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)