User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2014/June

Your submission at Articles for creation: IP Address conflict (June 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Decker&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

j⚛e deckertalk 05:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Juliemaines
Hi Jeff, I am brand new to Wikipedia and am thinking about writing an article, but the references I have are all authored by the owner/president of the company. They are, however, published in reputable online magazine (Fast Company, for example). He also has a book that was published in December. Would this be sufficient? Although the book and articles are from a primary source, they are not self-published. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliemaines (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Please read Notability (organizations and companies) and Help:Referencing for beginners. Thank you.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   05:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Grand Canyon Synod
Regarding this article, there may be a case to be made for deletion of it, but there are quite a few other articles about ELCA synods in Category:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America synods. It would be preferable to take the article to Articles for deletion so that a full discussion can be held as to whether the article deserves deletion or whether it can be improved enough to be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Grand Canyon Synod.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   03:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Augustana College (Illinois) article question
Hi! I just noticed that you deleted some names from this list with the edit summary "rm nn." Could you tell me what that means? I'm guessing "nn" is not notable, but I'm not sure about "rm." Thanks extabulis (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "rm" is short for "remove". Edit summary legend has other examples of abbreviations you might see in an edit summary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me towards the edit summary legend, Metropolitan90! extabulis (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for jumping in. You were right, I meant "removed non-notable", in this case removing people that were not subjects of existing articles from a list of "Notable students and alumni" of Augustana College (Illinois). I've seen "rm" used here before; my personal derivation is rm (Unix).  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   04:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Curiosity
What drew your attention to Thomas DiLorenzo? Was it the fact that Vespristiano had created it back in 2004? Just wondering. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was it. There's more info in the User:Vespristiano section.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   04:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Vespristiano
May I ask why you have templated this long retired editor multiple times? He hasn't edited since 2006 and I somehow doubt he's going to start now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We have long-established mechanisms for flagging articles as PRODded or subject to CSD, which include templating the articles' creators' user talk pages automatically via Twinkle as the responsible thing to do, and a courtesy to the creators. As I recall, my only manual addition to that user talk page was a create-1 warning. When I started looking into that user's article creations, I was appalled at the quantity of articles that were either unreferenced or solely reliant on self-published sources when they were created, and had not had any verifiable reliable sources added in the past eight years, each of which reflected poorly on the encyclopedia. All such articles qualified for PROD, and some qualified for overriding CSD A7 due to the subject matter. One that I thought qualified for CSD (Grand Canyon Synod) is addressed in a section of this page that was created earlier. I'm sorry for how this made the user's talk page (and perhaps inbox) look, but I couldn't in good conscience leave those articles the way I found them. Perhaps there is a solution that can automatically improve the appearance of the notifications on the user's user talk page, but I am not aware of one. I was going to look into more of that user's article creations, but real life intervened.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   03:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my comment above, I was curious too. What disturbed me was the nomination of The Worldly Philosophers. I had read the book long ago and knew it was influential. I'd have hated for it to disappear. In any event, nominating articles often prompts editors to get on the stick to improve them. But then the noref and refimprove templates should serve the same function. Thanks for your explanation to Ritchie. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that input. I think some of these articles already had years-old noref and refimprove templates that did not serve that function sufficiently. I'm considering converting some of my PRODs to noref, refimprove, and no footnotes templates where appropriate, and I wouldn't object to anyone else doing the same.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   04:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's now reasonably known I don't like the Twinkle templates - I don't think new users really parse them well (see User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates) - the Page Curation templates are a little better, but nothing beats a personalised message, and definitely nothing beats improving the article yourself. Don't forget, you have the option of turning off notification when you use Twinkle, and the deletion guidelines recommend you notify all interested parties which sometimes aren't the creator (particularly if that's an IP). Adding multiple instances of the same template that advises an established editor retired for 8 years about reading Your first article probably isn't going to achieve much.

Do bear in mind that Vespristiano's first versions of these articles date from ten years ago, when (in the pre Siegenthaler incident era) there was a far more lax approach to verification and citations were not demanded so vigorously. Even today, the guidelines for inline citations are only required for quotations, material challenged or likely to be challenged, or contentious information about living people. If an article has no citations, it may simply mean it is something of encyclopaedic importance without contentious information, and which has never been challenged. You should attempt a good faith attempt to search for sources before tagging articles for problems, and especially for using the deletion procedures. For example, you tagged DTU Space for A7 speedy deletion, though the criteria specifically prohibits academic institutions, then you PROD tagged it claiming "there are no sources", though I found one good source very quickly in a matter of seconds.

I would strongly advise you against adding more tags unless you are very confident you cannot find any citations, particularly those via a newspaper and book search, that verify the material present. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)