User talk:SOARA

Hi There, I have removed the new additions to the Integrative Improvement article based on the following reasons:
 * 1) I feel that we may have a disambiguation issue here: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers. For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to an element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things."
 * 2) I feel that II in the context of the current article (business excellence relating to end-to-end supply chain continuous improvement) and II in the context of Integrative Thinking as on your website (i.e. II as a Mind Science) are quite different topics. I believe that both contexts have a place on Wikipedia, but I don't believe that the two contexts should be merged into one article.
 * 3) The current article carries specific content such as history, See Also, Stages of maturity etc. which relates specifically to II in the context of Business Excellence/CI of the supply chain. By changing the introduction and the defination to a context of Mind Science makes the remaining content seem to not 'fit' or relate back to the definition/introduction. For instance, if we leave the definition of II as a Mind Science, the 5 Stages of Maturity (and it's content) seems completely unrelated and this will confuse readers.

May I suggest the following as a way forward: Using the example above of disambiguation for the word 'Mercury', the way around this is that there are separate articles for 'Mercury (element)', 'Mercury (planet)', 'Mercury (mythology)'. Perhaps we can resolve this if we create a completely separate article called 'Integrative Improvement (Mind Science)'? In this way, you will be able to all additional relevant context to Integrative Improvement as a Mind Science. Once your article is created, I will investigate the disambiguation process in having a 'landing page' created so that if users type "Integrative Improvement" into the search button on Wikipedia, they should come to a type of a landing page where they would see both articles, and then they can make the choice depending on which one they're looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah new (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your suggestion. May I offer these comments?

1 I doubt there is a disambiguation issue here as the original article labelled "Integrative Improvement" is about Integrative Performance Improvement(IPI) which I would regard as one of the tools which could be used in helping to achieve Integrative Improvement(II)in businesses. II is a broader concept applicable to all sorts of organisations and development generally not just business. Also, II in the original article is offered as another term for what the article is really about - Integrative Performance Improvement.

2 II as I use the term describes a process which was arrived at by applying Integrative Thinking which is a field of Applied Mind Science but II is not an aspect of Mind Science.

3 I suggest we overcome your objections by relabelling the present article "Integrative Performance Improvement"(IPI) and delete any use of the term Integrative Improvement within the article whilst leaving the references to Integrative Improvement and Integrative Thinking in Further Reading. SOARA (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PS I could then produce a full article on Integrative Improvement. SOARA (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you agreed to do that, it would be straightforward to move the existing article to Integrative Performance Improvement (which is at present a red link). That would leave a redirect page at the existing Integrative Improvement article, which could be edited into a new article. Then a hat-note at the top of the IPI article could point to the new one. But you should really take this discussion to Talk:Integrative Improvement first, in case there are other editors who have a view on the matter.
 * I am not arguing for or against the move: I have no knowledge of the subject. I am just telling you how to go about it if there is consensus to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies - I have been away. Please would you give me a week of 2's grace to mull all of this over before we discuss further? Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah new (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Would like to move this forward soon. SOARA (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Graham Douglas


A tag has been placed on Graham Douglas 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 of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it 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 you can assert the importance of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Graham Douglas


A tag has been placed on Graham Douglas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)