User talk:Jdsahr

Hello, Jdsahr, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Luksuh 05:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Radar Remote Sensing Laboratory
A tag has been placed on Radar Remote Sensing Laboratory requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating your own article
Hi, Dr. Sahr. I notice that you recently created an article about yourself. That is usually discouraged. However, it seems likely that you meet our notability criteria, and there wasn't any blatant self-promotion in the article, so I guess "no harm, no foul". Still, in the future I'd suggest avoiding creating articles about subjects you have a personal involvement with. --RL0919 (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Sahr


A tag has been placed on John Sahr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Abductive (reasoning) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I didn't delete the article, because full professors at universities like U Wash have almost always been held notable. But in a case like this, where you have apparently written an article about yourself, you will have to do some considerable work to prove it--it is not automatic. What you need to do is prove yourself an expert in your field. This is best done through the citation history of your published peer reviewed papers, which you can get best from Web of Science or Scopus. Don't list all your papers, but give the 5 with the highest counts. Additionally, include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio. As basic information, include the dates of your successive appointments to the academic ranks.

If you have had any notable students who would qualify for Wikipedia bios, include them. (Your PhD & postdoctoral advisors probably also qualify for bios here; add them and link them, even if they do not yet have articles.)

It has sometimes helped to mention major grants of which you are the PI, including the amount of money involved.

It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference. Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid WP:Peacock terms.

Please do not feel insulted by our challenge -- notability is a technical term here, meaning "something we want to have an article about in the encyclopedia", not a professional judgement. You will surely understand why we would be very skeptical about anyone who does their own autobio. It was, frankly, not that great an idea.

At this point, since nobody else has added to the article, if you wish to withdraw it you can do so: just add to the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My only reason for putting the article up was for people to be able to find information about MRR. I don't need to toot my horn, but it really is the case that MRR was a ground-breaking passive radar, in which a distributed receiver was used to solve the dynamic range problem usually faced by passive radars.
 * MRR achieves comparable sensitivity to Lockheed Martin's MRR for approximately 1/10000th the cost; the distributed receiver technology is not protected by patent. MRR is no longer operational (I have retired), but it generated a considerable stir in the Defense, Aerospace, and Intelligence communities because of its low cost and high performance.
 * I absolutely don't mind having someone critique the prose I generate for MRR, but it would be a genuine mistake to leave it undescribed if instruments like "SuperDARN" are described. There are quite a few external references to MRR publications, and a couple textbooks which have chapters describing it.
 * Eight people have received PhDs because of the existence of MRR and the subsequent research into high dynamic range receivers. There's even a startup company (OneRadioCorp.com) and a patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10419048B2/en?q=Goodson+Sahr&oq=Goodson+Sahr)
 * that descend from MRR.
 * One of the nice things about MRR is that none of the publications about it are classified; this is not the case for other passive radars.
 * John D Sahr
 * jdsahr@gmail.com
 * (retired from the UW; my jdsahr@uw.edu address no longer works). Jdsahr (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Sahr


The article John Sahr has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:Prof. Single digit h-index. Not a pioneer in a field, article makes no claim of notability, and none can be found in secondary sources.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.