User talk:Jo Jc Jo/Archives/2022/December

Revert at Eva Kaili
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Eva Kaili: you may already know about them, but you might find Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Redtree21 (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey @Redtree21, thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't ordinarily think the adjustment of a single letter and a minor edit (as marked by the original editor) would warrant a notification to a talk page, it would seem a little high maintenance to do so. Even more so when the original editor was an IP user. But hey, each to their own.
 * Happy editting! Jo Jc Jo (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Good Lobby


A tag has been placed on The Good Lobby 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 person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. 2A01:4C8:49:A87B:9D2E:F11E:FB80:962 (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please remove the deletion. I have competed the draft response to contest the speedy deletion and would like to share it..
 * This article should not be speedily deleted in contrast to the accusations of lack of notoriety. The page is just a stub page for WikiProject EU and will be developed further over time.
 * The Good Lobby is often referenced in reputable sources in response to major events in European Politics. On just some tertiary research to illustrate a point you can see the seer number of referenced they regularly and consistently receive from major international new sources. I believe this illustrates prominence and substantively refutes the criteria for deletion (WP:A7).
 * Referenced by major publications in relating to story 1 this weekend Politico, Time Magazine, BBC
 * Referenced by major publications in relating to story 2 two weeks ago Politico,
 * Referenced by major publications in relating to story 3 two weeks ago Politico, Brussels Times, Euractiv, Centre for European Research
 * Referenced by major publications, 2 months ago Politico, Euractiv, Transparency international Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 12:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Eppo, in the EP scandal article
I saw you reverted my removal of the sentence "Notably absent from the early stages of the investigation was the European Public Prosecutor's Office who are the body with competence over criminal offenses that affect the EU’s financial interests.". How is that sentence supported by this, which is in the source: "The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has been in touch with the Belgian federal prosecutor to suss out who has oversight of what in the ongoing Qatari corruption probe, a spokesperson of the office confirmed in an emailed statement shared with POLITICO. The EPPO has the competence over criminal offenses that affect the EU’s financial interests. In contacting the Belgian prosecutor, the EPPO is trying to figure out if it has any role in the Qatari probe. No decision has been made for now, nor is there a concrete timeline for one, the EPPO spokesperson said." There is nothing about "notable absence" in there or that EPPO should somehow naturally have been involved in the early stages of the investigation. The sentence is thus misleading and I will remove it again. Yakikaki (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Yakikaki. And thanks for reaching out to let me know. I am on mobile now and will find a better reference later to substantiate.
 * Thanks again and happy editing! Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 19:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I think you can make an addition to the article using that source, but maybe phrase it differently. It is interesting in itself that EPPO has been in touch with the Belgian police, for example. Cheers, Yakikaki (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)