User talk:JanetteDoe/Archive 1

Your recent contributions in the Indian caste subject area
I really appreciate your recent contributions regarding various Indian caste articles and the general concepts regarding treatment thereof. It is always good to get new eyes, and especially so when they can focus on the issues that matter in terms of the scope of Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ... and regarding your sourcing of the Rao material which you have linked at Talk:Yadav - brilliant. Thank you so much. Let's hope that this issue can now be resolved. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hirotsugu
Many thanks for the scan. If you still have the book, could you also scan the footnotes (113 to 132)? And which edition/publication date is the book (1995?)? bamse (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource request
Hi JanetteDoe. According from your posts at WP:RX, it seems as if you have access to an extensive university library. Would you be able to get these articles? If not, no worries. Goodvac (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get these items next week. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Would you mind if I add some more (I don't want to feed off your charity ;)? They aren't as important as the ones listed at RX, but would be helpful. Goodvac (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very kind. If you mean the St Louis Post-Dispatch items, I am looking into getting them.  If there are other items, then add them to the list in order of priority and I'll see what I can do.  But please understand, it may not be right away.  JanetteDoe (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I already got the Post-Dispatch ones from a local, . There are a few other articles from architectural journals that I want. I'll add them shortly. Feel free to take your time in getting these; I'm in no rush. Thanks again! Goodvac (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * has said that he would be able to get the Architectural Record and Architectural Forum articles, so you can feel free to take those off your list unless you've already gotten them. Sorry, never mind. Goodvac (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in?
Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

MS Rao
A while back, you indicated on Talk:Yadav that you were requesting a copy of Rao's book, the one that many editors (named and IP) are insisting is clear evidence of a Yadav-Ahir connection. Did you ever get that book? I don't see any info in the archives saying that you got it, though there's an awful lot of stuff there so maybe I just didn't look in the right place. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it--I was looking in the archives, not realizing it was still on the current talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Who Was Who in British India
Hi, does your library have a copy of the (very expensive) Who Was Who In British India? John F. Riddick, Greenwood Press, 1998. ISBN 9780313292323.

If so, would it be ok for me to draw up a short-ish list of people whom I am interested in? It's ok if you would rather not - I'll ask at RX. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The library owns it but it is currently checked out, due early January. I am willing to request it and scan pages but you may have faster results from WP:RX.  JanetteDoe (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I'll give RX a shot but, tbh, these guys have been dead for a century & so if nothing turns up then another few months will make no odds. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of refs from Gyan Books
You are going to have to explain this. Gyan Books appears to be a reliable Indian publisher, not a self-publishing company. Being Indian does not make a reference unreliable. Third-party published references are considered reliable so long as the publishing company has a standard editorial process rather than being a self-publishing company. Gyan Books appears to have such a process. If you do not give an adequate explanation, all your reference removals will be reverted. Yworo (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the discussions on WP:RSN. Specific books were found to have Wikipedia-derived content. There was no conclusion that I can find that all books published by the publisher are unreliable. You should not simply be seeking out and removing every book from this publisher, only those shown to have circular referencing. For example, you removed a reference from the Last Exit on Brooklyn. That reference could not possibly have content derived from the Wikipedia article, as the book was published in 2005 and the Wikipedia article was not created until 2010.

Please either restore the references you have removed, or detail the problem with each specific book on the talk pages of the articles involved. "Projects" to indiscriminately apply remedies like this on multiple articles should almost always be discussed in advance, making a point to include editors of the articles affected. Yworo (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you have taken the time to read the discussions on WP:RSN. At the end of this thread, it states that Gyan has been placed on the list of Wikipedia mirrors and forks here.  The front page of WP:MF states clearly and without qualifiers: "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." JanetteDoe (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think it has been shown that every book is a Wikipedia mirror. Unless every book is, it should not have been placed on that list. Yworo (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or at least the template should be filled out with proper analysis and guidance. I've made a note about this here, requesting better information in the template. Until then, please use common sense and caution. Such an incomplete listing is certainly not a license to remove every use of a book from this publisher. Yworo (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to comment here. The basic rule with Gyan is that we remove on sight. It is true that one reason for doing this is because they are known to mirror Wikipedia content, and they do so across far more books than those that have been named at RSN or at MF. I could give a few more examples if required.
 * However, that is not the only reason why they are not reliable, as it has also been shown that (a) they plagiarise the work of other authors/publishers and (b) they even re-use content "written" by their authors in other books published by them but under another author's name. Obviously, these situations can apply even where the book predates the WP article.
 * For these reasons there is clearly a failure - deliberate or otherwise - in editorial control and as such all output from Gyan (and Kalpaz and Isha, which are both Gyan imprints) should be considered to be unreliable. The only possible exception to that rule would be their occasional reprints of very old works, but in those instances we should usually have access to the original in any case ... and in my own experience I wouldn't even trust the reprints as they are sometimes mangled beyond recognition. Sorry, but that it how it is, and it is a position supported by such WP copyright gurus etc as User:Moonriddengirl. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An aside: Yworo, is there some reason why you are using the Master Editor box (42k edits) on your user page while actually having 30k edits? I presume that there must have been a change of username at some point? Just curious. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I used a static IP provided by a former employer for approximately 24,000 edits (counting article space edits only) before creating this account when I left that employer. Service awards state that "It's all on the honor system, so do what you think gives you the most fair and accurate award level." Yworo (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of how the service awards system works. I was just curious, like I said. No big deal. - Sitush (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at MF here. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Institute for Complementary and Natural Medicine


The article Institute for Complementary and Natural Medicine has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Long unreferenced and orphaned article, with no significant claim to notability and no significant description other then side comments about their existence in secondary source materials

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Quiet
You have gone a little quiet. I trust that all is ok with you. Feel free to drop a whinge on my talk page or via email if you want to do so. - Sitush (talk)


 * Thank you for your concern, I truly appreciate it. Nothing is wrong, just that non-wiki projects have been taking up my time. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

reply
Added book Old Sanawarians, Including: Sanjay Dutt, Siddharth Kak, Omar Abdullah, Maneka Gandhi, Amarinder Singh, Rahul Roy, Saif Ali Khan, Arun Khetarpal, Lawrence School, Sanawar, Pooja Bedi, Sonny Mehta, Rana Talwar, Mohammad Iqbal Khan, Kirat Bhattal. Hephaestus Books, 2011. ISBN 1243042036, following WP:MF

Thank you for guidenceWhileships savedhead (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your supplies
Thanks for the three sources that you provided. I need to be in the right frame of mind to read a scientific paper, but the other two have set my FAC nomination back on course and blown the POv-y objector out of the water. Basically, using what I can remember from reading the full books and the joggers that you provided, we've called his bluff as per Talk:James Tod. Happy days. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I only regret that I did not notice these edits earlier:   or I would have added them to my shopping list.  JanetteDoe (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, crap. It looks like I may have to step in there. There is a connection of some sort between ITF and RIK, although precisely what it may be is not yet certain. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the quote from Trautmann by ITF was a blatant copyvio. For reasons that I do not understand, I can see p. 117 using the Google Preview from here but not from GBooks itself! I'll spend some time reading the thing and then fix the problem. ITF was quote mining, I am pretty sure of it. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Scripts
Looks like the decision on removing scripts was here, and there's clarification here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you get hold of ...
Hi, just wondering if your magic library has access to the item catalogued here? I have the feeling that we are looking at a major copyright violation. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you note down the title? The wayback machine is currently taking a nap.  JanetteDoe (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah - it was a bit messy: a 1980 republication of a potted biography originally published in a journal in 1973 ... or something like that. I'll ping you when Wayback Comesback. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have it. I can get it, but not until the end of the month as I am about to go out of town.  JanetteDoe (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try WP:RX and blank it for now. I'll let you know what goes on (if anything), and at least I know that there is a reserve option if RX is not successful. Thanks for looking at it and have a good trip. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your insights and perspectives
Dear Janette, thank you for all your work for the Encyclopedia. I'd like to invite you to contribute to the DRN concerning adding L. Susan Brown to the 'See also' section of The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM). Some of us believe the inclusion of Brown’s deep knowledge and perspective is helpful not just for her expertise, and for the sake of fairness, but, more importantly, because it provides a female perspective that would supply depth and context to the TZM article. Other editors oppose that view. Best regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Eternity clause
You are right that the referenced article in National Review is about not changing the fundamental principles of democracy, not a "constitution". And this is why I have a BIG problem with Lone boatman and the three other "editors" who suddenly showed up for the first timee and agreed with Lone boatman. Lone boatman does not want the word "democracy". After I accused him of synthesizing he then took revenge by changing the entire article into a catch all international page in which he redefines 'eternity clause' as a "term" used internationally instead of the colloquial description specific to Article 79 paragraph (3) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. This page was part of the German law page specific to Germany, not an international one which is already covered under a Wikipedia article entitled "entrenched clause". Lone boatman added the additional international data at the top of the page only to cover up the 'eternity clause' article. And again he focused on the word "constitution" at the top of his change. And when I told him he had wrongfully duplicated the "entrenched clause" to pursue his use of the word "constitution" (which I had previously told him Germany does not have), he then added "Basic Law" to his change to make it appear that he is not politically motivated with his changes. Then several editors suddently showed up for the first time and one of them deleted the entire 'eternity clause' article, leaving only what Lone boatman had put in at the top. Wikipedia is apparently no place to safeguard an article, even a properly referenced article, which the article was. And it was not a personal essay on a statute, as I have been accused of. It is an important historic prohibition placed in the Germany's Basic Law regarding the protection of Germany's new democracy.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't read any of what I wrote on your talk page, have you? Slow down and try to learn the rules.  JanetteDoe (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Gyan Books again
I see that you are (once again) removing reference citations to material published by Gyan Books. It is true that this publisher is listed at WP:MF, but the discussion that led to it being listed there (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_70) did not implicate the publisher's entire output. Rather, the issue was that some books by this publisher were found to include content from Wikipedia. That is not a valid reason for banning the publisher's entire output from being cited in Wikipedia articles.

The first reference that I restored was to a book published in 2000, before Wikipedia was started. It is impossible for a book published in 2000 to be a Wikipedia mirror.

Please stop your destructive removal of references to Gyan-published sources that are not mirrors. Each source by this publisher needs to be evaluated individually. Do not remove a reference citation to this publisher unless you have determined that the cited content was copied or mirrored from Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the above thread on Gyan references, this time with attention to detail. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been systematically restoring deleted references to books published prior to 2001, when Wikipedia was started. It is impossible for any book published in 1993 or 2000 to have been a Wikipedia mirror. --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part about their plaigarism and lack of editorial oversight? JanetteDoe (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather that you feel you are enforcing a ban or blacklisting. However, I do not see any indication that the discussion led to a consensus decision to blacklist this publisher's output. Indeed, insinuations on Wikipedia talk pages about the publisher's lack of editorial oversight, based on analysis of the contents of several books published circa 2006-2009, would not justify expunging the publisher's entire historical list from Wikipedia references. At most, it might justify placing a template in the reference citation, with a note documenting the reasons why you question the reliability of the source. PS - Because it is likely that the entire publishing output of some countries in certain time periods could be found to contain plagiarism, and even the most careful publishers are fooled sometimes, it would be utterly impractical for Wikipedia to ban citations to every publisher that has been found to publish plagiarized content. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Revert on sight" is pretty clear. Also, can we keep the discussion in one place please?  JanetteDoe (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As near as I can determine, your assertion that there is a community consensus to "revert on sight" is based on a statement that Sitush made previously on this user talk page, where he said "The basic rule with Gyan is that we remove on sight." I cannot find where Sitush's statement is based on a consensus. There have been several noticeboard discussions about several books Gyan published in the last 6 years that are demonstrated to be mirrors of Wikipedia (and therefore should be removed on sight), and there are allegations (mostly in WP:AFD discussions) that Gyan is a self-publisher (it appears to me that these allegations are based on the existence of badly written books), but I do not find consensus that every reference to anything ever published by Gyan needs to be deleted on sight. In particular, I am concerned that books published before 2001 are being incorrectly labeled Wikipedia mirrors -- it is impossible to have copied from Wikipedia before there was a Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That is the fourth time you've mentioned the impossibility of pre-wikipedia books being mirrored from WP content, and yes, I grasp that. Did you seriously think I didn't? I mean, really? You had to mention it four times? Wow!

What I was in fact trying to draw your attention to was the following:

"However, that is not the only reason why they are not reliable, as it has also been shown that (a) they plagiarise the work of other authors/publishers and  (b) they even re-use content "written" by their authors in other books published  by them but under another author's name. Obviously, these situations can apply  even where the book predates the WP article."

I hope I have made my concern clear. Please feel free to ask if it is unclear to you. Please address the issue explained in this quoted passage. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that clarification. Since you had deleted the reference citations with edit summaries that identified the sources as Wikipedia mirrors, it truly wasn't clear that you realized they couldn't possibly be mirrors. As for the concern that you highlight here, there is no denying the possibility of problems with Gyan publications, but I still have seen no indication that there ever was a consensus to blacklist Gyan or ban all reference citations to Gyan publications. There is a large difference between an admonition to "be very careful" and an authorization to "remove on sight"; I have not seen evidence of a consensus to "remove on sight". --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Note, saw this on Sitush's talk page, followed it back here). Orlady, the consensus is, in a certain sense, Sitush, JanetteDoe, and myself, along with a few ancillary people at RSN discussions. In a sense, we "enforce" a "consensus", because the publisher is so very very bad. First of all, anyone who publishes mirrors of WP articles without identifying them should be immediately suspect. Second, Sitush has found instances where they've republished old works, but changed them, and not identified those changes. Because of this lack of clarity in what they publish being "good" or "bad", there is simply no way we can trust anything they print. If you think we need to get some sort of "official" consensus to enforce a full blacklisting, we can do that; I'm not quite sure of where to do so, WP:RSN is insistent that cases must be linked to articles. WP:VPP? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, everyone. I am trying to play catch-up here but will be gone again for a few days. In my opinion, there is a consensus at RSN regarding the mirroring issue and I vaguely recall that general reliability has also been raised at the India project talk page. Beyond that, as Qwyrxian says, people have found other instances of extremely dubious editorial oversight - it is not just me, as has highlighted quite a few and, yes, there have been pre-Wiki examples. I just wish that I had kept a list but some of them were multiple "violations". You can trust me on that or choose not to do so. Gyan is not an academic press and with numerous specific instances of poor practice within their catalogue I cannot see how they can be deemed reliable for anything. We are talking of a huge number of publications here, not a handful. Of course, this is based on a US/UK assessment of standards and it is well-known that the Indian approach to historiography, to copyright etc often differs dramatically from that assessment. There may be systemic bias involved in the assessment but, well, I treat British Raj sources with pretty much the same very, very large pinch of salt. The recent tightening of procedures at WP:RSN was for a good reason and generally makes sense but I am prepared to attempt a float there if that is what is required. Or if someone wants to raise the matter at WP:VPP then please do let me know. My gut feeling is that the real issue here is one of a person who perhaps implicitly gives AGF to non-SPS book-published sources and several people who have a pretty fair experience of the issue in a specific Indic context. JD is quite upset about the way that this incident has been handled - I think that is somewhat unfortunate and perhaps justified in the early stages, but Orlady's last remark above hopefully goes some way to clearing the air. We all intend well here, are rational and sensible: I'd hope that we can get over the initial misunderstandings. When I move on to proposing that all the "States series" publications of the Anthropological Survey of India are unreliable, well, ... - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first restoration of a Gyan source that I did was this. The article Drang-Drung Glacier is one that I had on my watchlist after reviewing it for a WP:DYK nomination. The book cited appears to be a travel guide for mountaineers and trekkers. Those books never are of very high quality as sources (regardless of their publisher), but a guidebook seems adequate as a source for a bit of geographical information. The book was published before Wikipedia existed, so it is not a mirror. I'm not at all sure that the detail belongs in the article, regardless of its source, but it is far easier to evaluate the situation when one knows where that factoid was obtained than when the detail is left in the article but marked "citation needed".
 * The second Gyan source that I restored was a reference to a 1995 book for the origin of the name of a road in Kolkata. This is a trivial fact, but since it's the only item in the article that has a cited source, it seems peculiar to delete that source and highlight this one fact with "citation needed", while ignoring the absence of sourcing for the rest of the article. The cited book is not otherwise relevant to the article; based on writing style, I think it likely that the 1995 publication was a reprint of an older book. If so, I can't evaluate whether the publisher had legal authority to republish it.
 * In the next case, I restored this 1998 Google Books link to Government of Delhi. The book is not cited in the article, and I can't tell what article information (if any) is supposed to have come from it. Superficially, the book looks solid. The front pages identify Indian Institute of Public Administration as copyright holder; it appears that the book was printed by Gyan under contract to this Institute.
 * The fourth case involved a 1996 source that is one of several semi-redundant sources cited to support a discussion of a stadium bombing that occurred in 1995.
 * The last case is the only one relating to the kind of historical and philosophical content that seems to have been the focus of past concerns about Gyan sources, but the cited source dates from 1993 (long before the publications I've found discussed on various talk pages and noticeboards). It would be helpful for someone with expertise in the subject matter to re-evaluate the content of the cited passages, with the information that there are concerns about the reliability of the source. --Orlady (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

 * Thank you for copy editing of articles created by me.
 * Thank you for encouraging words.-Rayabhari (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * for providing reliable source for article Sultana (actress). It will help salvaging this AFD.-Rayabhari (talk) 06:38, 19 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) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Resources request
Hello again You once were so kind to scan some pages from a book. Thanks to your help I wrote Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion. I now started to write about another rebellion and need the information from the same book on that rebellion as it is the only source (in English) that tells about the actual battles etc.. Please let me know if you still have access to the book and have time to scan some pages from it. I'd be very happy if you could, but won't be upset either if you can't. I am not sure which pages exactly I need as google books does not show much. The main part seems to be around page 73, but the index also mentions page 108. Perhaps also scan a bit before and after the Nakamaro Rebellion chapter just in case. Likely there will be footnotes in the text, so a scan of the relevant footnotes would be helpful as well. Thank you. bamse (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Just had a look again at your scans from the Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion, and it seems the starting page for Fujiwara no Nakamaro would be page 69. bamse (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I just noticed that you haven't been active on wikipedia for a month. Hope you are not angry that I posted this request at WP:RX. bamse (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The request has been filled, so please ignore this section. bamse (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please come back
Hey, JD, I'm missing you. Please come back. It seems pretty obvious that the bruising and rather unfair criticism from has put you off. That's a shame because I'm willing to bet that practically every other regular that you had dealings with thinks you were a darn good Wikipedian, especially with your unstinting work providing sources via WP:RX and other means. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Janette, I'm an admin and long time editor around here, as well as founder and active participant at WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention. The goal of the project is to make editing here more rewarding and enjoyable for everyone. Sitush has brought it to my attention that you haven't been around lately, and it may be due to some disputes.  Wikipedia can be a pain in some ways, but it can also be very rewarding.  Many times, disputes can be mediated by a third party such as myself.  Sometimes things get more rude onwiki than they would in real life.  The internet is funny that way.  If there is anything that I can do to help you here, to make contributing more joy than hassle, I would welcome you to email me and I will be happy to speak with you privately about it.  I would have emailed, but you don't have email enabled.  If you prefer to discuss onwiki, please drop a note on my talk page.  Every editor is important, and your contributions are important and wanted, so please feel free to contact me, or drop by the talk page at Editor Retention.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing
Wow, did you go through all the pages I have created? Thanks for tagging the articles, and reviewing my created articles. Here. have a cookie... Mat  ty. 007 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You're back!
Yay! Sorry for all the previous heartache. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Stub tags
Please take care not to add {[tl|stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, as you did here: it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. Pam D  07:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I must have missed it. JanetteDoe (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: COI
It felt a little rude that you labelled me as potentially having a COI on that article; I've been a long-time editor here on articles of all types; personally, I only thought that needed an article after I found a surprising number of secondary sources and had successfully documented a certain entrepreneur's quest to consolidate the dance music industry. I also thought that said tour had that "huh?" factor that makes a good DYK topic. Besides, if I were actually affiliated with them, I probably would have left out and glossed over the incidents they had a few years back when they visited Lehigh University.

And also, it started as a userspace draft that was moved into mainspace, which explains my large number of edits to that page. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're certainly allowed your own opinion but it was a good faith tagging and on reviewing the article I think it was correctly done. The article's tone is promotional and almost fawning.  It isn't a good idea to edit articles that you are too close to.  I have created the talk page for this article and posed the question there.  I'd rather you'd have left the tag so that others might see it and weigh in.  The tags are dated and placed into a category so that editors interested in cleanup of articles with specific issues can find them, such as, in this case,  .  If others agreed that the article's tone was balanced and neutral, then I would not object.


 * Also, when commenting on a user's talk page about an article it's a good idea to mention the name of the article. I have tagged quite a few and had to search through them to find the one you had created.  JanetteDoe (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ransome & Marles
Thanks for you review. The name might now stay with you and if you find anything useful I'd be very grateful if you would add it to the article. It was (and I suppose still is, but under new ownership) a substantial business but all I can find online is copious mourning for (many) deaths in an enemy attack 60+ years ago, the employees clearly still have a strong sense of belonging. Eddaido (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you searched for Ransome & Marles on books.google.com? I did and came up with quite a list of references, though not all are viewable.  Viewability I've been told can vary from country to country depending on copyright laws.  It looks like among other things they sponsored(?) a well known brass band.  JanetteDoe (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Life in Color
Well, ironically, now the article actually got edited by someone who appeared to actually have a COI (and just got blocked for having a promotional username). I did revert it though. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Tag in Anne-Marie Baiynd
Hi JanetteDoe. You recently tagged the Anne-Marie Baiynd article as sounding like an advertisement. I wrote that one and thought I had been pretty neutral. It had to go through two disputes of her being notable and a big chunk of what one person thought was an advertisement was already removed. Every comment is referenced so I need a little more to go on than just the tag please. Would you mind giving me a little more specific assistance? Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences Journal question
Hi JanetteDoe, You tagged the entry for differences as "personal reflection or opinion essay." Can you offer advice on how to fix the tone of the entry? I read the page on What it is not for help, but I'm still unclear as to where the article went wrong. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have before I tackle rewriting it. Thank you. Culturclopedia (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Culturclopedia. I've looked over the article again.  Personal essay may not have been the best tag to choose.  To my eye, it has a bit of a promotional tone, mentioning publications, holdings, endowment and so on.  Aren't there any disagreements, controversies or critics?  Let me emphasize, it is overall a good article; I don't consider it to need a huge rewrite at all.  It just comes off to me as a little too unconditionally positive and I wonder if it doesn't need some balance.  I hope that helps.  JanetteDoe (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I'll look into criticism to add to the article. Culturclopedia (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article has been fixed by another editor. Thank you for your help regarding the previous version of the article. Culturclopedia (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent review
Hi! I noticed that you recently reviewed List of bills in the 113th United States Congress and added a tag that it needed references to it. I'm a little confused about that part. All of the bills have (in the first column) their number as a hyperlink directly to the Library of Congress website, which itself gives the bill number, date introduced, short and long titles, all of which is what comprises the chart. Does this not count as a citation? What types of references would need to be available on the page for the tag to be removed? Obviously the page is just a list of bills from the Congress all of which have articles and those articles have citations. Would adding three of four general websites that track all Congressional legislation to the bottom of the article be sufficient? (I noticed no tag is on Acts of the 113th United States Congress). Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there some source that indicates the full list of legislation under consideration for this congressional session? JanetteDoe (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I went ahead and added five such sources at the bottom under external links.  One is from the Library of Congress, one is from Congress.gov, and the other three are from non-profit watchdog groups.  All of them have information about every piece of legislation so far introduced in this Congress, and most of them have many additional years worth.  Is that sufficient?HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks very nice, thank you. I just looked at your edit history.  I was woefully unaware that we had so many ABC Acts and XYZ Bills, well done. JanetteDoe (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, have you thought about setting up archiving on your talk page? Those old sections can make it harder to clearly notice new posts.  If you view source on this talk page you see the settings I use, or there are instructions here. JanetteDoe (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrome (singer)
First; sorry if I just sent you a notification. The edit summary for that was linked to another edit - sorry about that. However, if you look, "www.iamchrome.com" is the title stated on the tab and so I have removed the template. Thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, as it is clearly a promotional url. It may not need to be removed, but please do understand that in general it is preferable to avoid bare urls.  JanetteDoe (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. On this occasion, what alternative title would you suggest?-- Laun  chba  ller  08:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually it'll just usually be "I am Chrome website". JanetteDoe (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

2013-14 morton season
Hows about instead of adding a whiny cn tag, you just fix the broken ref?Salty1984 (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I couldn't see where it was and didn't want to screw up the chart format. Thank you for you polite and appreciative response for my cleanup work.  JanetteDoe (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Patent privateer
An article that you have been involved in editing, Patent privateer, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. OccamzRazor (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Two Sisters (On the Terrace)
Recently this article (which was tagged by you in July) was polished by another editor, who corrected the style in a few places. Do you think the tag can be removed now? Thanks, — Adavyd (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

tag for the article Yurii Sh. Matros
Dear JanetteDoe,

You reviewed and tagged the article Yurii Sh. Matros for: (1) This article appears to be written like an advertisement, and (2)This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.

I improved the article by adding additional information and references.

Please reconsider the tags based on the new information. Dserge01 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear JanetteDoe, If you do not reply in a few weeks, I will assume that the changes I have done are enough to remove the tag, and I will do it myself. Thank you,
 * Replied on article talk page. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagging an Article
You reviewed the article Vienna Document, for which I thank you. However, you applied a tag to it for bare references. I tried to use the tool specified for the purpose, and it said that no changes were made. Is there something more subtle that I should change in the article, or should I remove the template, or is something else the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've tried to use that tool myself with limited success. Most of the time I do it manually.  Sorry, I wish I had a better answer for you.  JanetteDoe (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is one of two answers. The other, as I discovered with other recently reviewed articles on similar treaties, is to do nothing, and then someone else will fix the links manually.  This is a collaborative project.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Global warming
Similar comment.... your bare url tag at Global warming made me waste time checking 230+ citations to find a single bare url, which was outdated anyway. Cleanup is great; thanks for caring..... HOWEVER..... it wouldn't hurt to try harder to distinguish between a single piece of litter you just bend over to pick up and a bear-trashed garbage can scattered up and down the road for which you need to call grounds keeping. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Either you used a control key search in which case you are complaining about typing at most ten keystrokes, or you used a naked eye search which is very slow and misses things. As it did this time.  How about instead of lecturing others you try to improve your editing skills?  JanetteDoe (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I always like to learn. I made a WP:AGF effort at locating the offending items on the article page I most care about, and found just one.   If you are correct, then I did not know about my ignorance and need to take your advice about improving my editing skills!  But I still don't know what I don't know.  Would you please help me fix this problem by pointing out examples that existed at the time of my comment (10:30 6 August) and teaching me what the faster, more reliable alternative means I could have used to find them?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagging for linkrot
Please don't add this tag for just a few bare links. It would be better to use Reflinks directly instead of tagging with "please can someone else do it?" In Barbie, Reflinks found only one link to fill in, while in Great Recession it did not find any at all. This type of tagging makes articles look ugly without actually improving anything.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)