User talk:Jeslw

all sources on this page of John E S Lawrence are clearly, (neutrally) referenced and independently verifiable.. and hopefully within WIKI guidelines, if not, please specify.. thanks JESLJeslw (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on John E.S. Lawrence, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Whpq 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest notification
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article John E.S. Lawrence, 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, 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; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --  At am a chat 16:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

we believe we have complied with the important Wiki `neutral source' criterion... by providing not only extensive non-Wiki, but also Wiki-sources for this article/// all references are accurate and independently verifiable Jeslw (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi.. thanks for the quick response... I am very sensitive to, and respectful of the WIKI conflict of interest guidelines (essential to WIKI legitimacy and credibility), and have carefully ensured academic references are objective, professional (and where possible independently refereed) sources .. furthermore the Antarctic reference, for example, is originally not mine, but is cited in the US Geological Survey at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:5:3136514116633073::NO::P5_ANTAR_ID:8614, and all references in my additions to the WIKI article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Peaks are published, reputable and verifiable...

I know your role requires you to look at many inputs, and thus appreciate very much your attention to this little contribution...so welcome your guidance as to how the principles of establishing a fair, accurate record of useful fact can be followed here... the reason why I started (from the original Antarctic ref) was that the resulting WIKI editorial asked for further documentation, and stated that there was no J.E.S.Lawrence page, so I tried to comply usefully and accurately...

Re John E S Lawrence
Im not sure if you are the one editing my efforts on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.E.S.Lawrence, but please know that I am trying hard, and in good faith, to comply with WIKI COI guidelines by usefully linking WIKI pages (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Peaks) while providing minimal information with independently verifiable sources... and will welcome any explicit guidance you can give me... thanks Jeslw (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) New threads go in a new section (so I'm taking the liberty of placing it in a new section in your talkpage).
 * 2) WP:COI restricts COI editors to
 * 3)  Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
 * 4)  Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
 * 5)  Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
 * 6)  Reverting or removing their own COI edits.  Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
 * 7)  Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.
 * 8) Even were your edits not covered by the above restrictions, I would suggest that you avoid editing this article, as your edits frequently violate WP:NOR (in that they often contain information not contained in the cited source), WP:V (in that they frequently cite no source at all), and Wikipedia citation standards (WP:CITE, e.g. by leaving the cited document unclear and/or using short-lived links such as Google cache). I would therefore suggest that, should you desire to edit other (non-COI) articles, you familiarise yourself with wikipedia policy & guidelines first.

just for the record, please note, aspiring WP contributors, however misguided, can do without these types of editorial comments (above), put-down charges and paternalistic, lecturing tone, one of the reasons why Wikipedeia risks losing respect from potential supporters... as (among other things) a professional researcher, I don't need preaching on the importance of accurate sourcing..... as I noted, my work is clearly and openly referenced in more than 100 publications, many of which are up and down online, whether it meets WP notabiity requirements or not... and everything I offered on this ill-fated draft page was a verifiable, documentable matter of public record, even if my understanding of WP procedures is obviously lacking, and I regret the editorial frustration it must have causedJeslw (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of the COI issue, and the fact that the material you're adding is heavily non-compliant with general Wikipedia policy, I've been heavily pruning the material you've added. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is still unclear whether you meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC.

Thanks for the quick response, and on this page... much appreciated...as you can see I am (perhaps with many others) trying to understand and comply with WP criteria, am sensitive to the COI judgement for obvious reasons, but with all reasonable humility, want to make sure that these entries are not trivialized in any way ... your point about short-lived Google cache citations is well taken, but mine refer generally to published documentation (usually in academic and peer-reviewed publications).. and the Google reference simply allows access to an online version...

meanwhile I am trying to understand why carefully documented refs to involvement with the Antarctica expedition, and to the UN and human resources development have been removed from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.E.S.Lawrence page, when WP criteria seem to be seeking links for strengthening internal consistency in WP substance. If seriously and professionally involved people offer objective (or even subjective) and detailed knowledge about these events/issues, why exclude them from contributing, as long as their data are informative, and can be clearly and independently verified?

Your additions have not contained "carefully documented refs". As an example, take your addition of this ref for the claim in Lawrence Peaks that states:

The only relevant material in the reference is: "Mount Hancox 	Mountain 	72° 38’ 00” S  	166° 59’ 00” E"

This means that only the name and location of only one of the three mountains is verifiable -- but not who it was named for, and not his position on an expedition.

Your edits, almost ubiquitously, take a passing mention in some obscure document and expand it, based upon personal (i.e. original research) knowledge well beyond what the document in fact says. I draw your attention to WP:V which states:

You have not rendered your additions 'verifiable' to a "published…reliable source".

Your inability to distinguish between OR personal knowledge, and published knowledge, is of itself a good reason to dissuade you from editing articles closely related to you, quite apart from objectivity issues. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick response...the reference I have repeatedly cited in this instance is neither `obscure', nor `personal knowledge' but is in fact an acknowledged authority on legally valid Antarctic place names, which contains separate references to all four names of the 1966-7 Mariner Glacier Northern Party expedition members as specified via New Zealand law (section 35(3) of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008) ... and since they are all listed (alphabetically) under the same authoritative ref, I didn't tediously repeat all four refs..... however, for example, illustratively of each of them, here is the one for David Gobey... - Mt Gobey: 72° 58’ 00” S 165° 15’ 00” E http://www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/consultation-decisions/decisions-archive/20090529/antarctic/e-f-g/index.aspx

please also note, in addition to other objective, independent references I have provided, that NASA (specifically the Goddard Space Flight Center) summarizes the work of this expedition in some detail at http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_K002_1966_1967_NZ_1.html Jeslw (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, and out of respect for my three former expedition colleagues (we spent months in tents exploring through those magnificent mountains), and further to above WP editorial comments requiring documentation of locations, who the peak was named for, and respective position on the expedition, please see

for Gobey: http://www.mapplanet.com/?do=loc&country=_A&adm1=04&loc=20004663 for Hancox: http://www.mapplanet.com/?do=loc&country=_A&adm1=04&loc=20005098 for Riddolls: http://www.mapplanet.com/?do=loc&country=_A&adm1=04&loc=20010182 Jeslw (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is "personal knowledge" in that it is not contained in the reference provided, and thus the reader is unable to "check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" using the reference provided. Unlike myself, the average reader is not in a position to badger you about references for the full amount of information given, leaving aide the fact that you only did so for this one example (not the rest of your additions) and on user talk, not in the article text where the average reader may see it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

actually all the information is contained in the reference I cited, but would indeed take some digging (since it is in an appended Excel file), so fair point, and thanks for the detailed explanation....... as regards putting it on the `talk' page, how else to provide verification in view of WP's strong discouragement to my (COI) posting on the subject page? WP guidelines state `If your changes are removed, please make no further changes until the issue has been appropriately discussed on the talk page.' Jeslw (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Article talk (Talk:Lawrence Peaks or Talk:John E.S. Lawrence, respectively). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of John E.S. Lawrence
I have nominated John E.S. Lawrence, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/John E.S. Lawrence. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gigs (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

December 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The Wanderer (poem). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)