User talk:Veggies 2

A page you started (Disaster Recovery Institute International) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Disaster Recovery Institute International, Veggies 2!

Wikipedia editor Judae1 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"It is properly written, well referenced and contains links to other Wiki articles."

To reply, leave a comment on Judae1's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Disaster Recovery Institute International


A tag has been placed on Disaster Recovery Institute International, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SmartSE (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Veggies 2. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are focused on Disaster Recovery Institute International. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and questions for you below.

Hello, Veggies 2. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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.

Comments and question
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with DRI? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks!

You can reply here - I am watching this page. Once you do, we can take it from there. Thanks in advance for talking! Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

-- Dear Jytdog: I appreciate that you are the only one to actually engage in a talk with me about this. I have no connection to them - not financially, not by relationships, nor any other measure. I do know of them because I have connections who work in business consulting and areas where DRI International supplies certifications and have been thinking about certification of my own. In learning more I saw the work in continuation and disaster recovery, and built this page based on materials that are readily available. I can ask you why there seems to be no conversation on this group and the work they do? The deletion came quickly, and without a talk at all, but the will of a single user declared it so. The article as written was not biased, was sourced properly and was informative in a non promotional manner. Yet, no discussion and the sense that only someone with an attachment would write this. Yet, there are so many articles on academic institutions and such that certify people in various aspects of vocational and educational professionalism, and all I did was follow mannerisms that some of those were drafted in. If you care to offer insight or help, I am more than happy to work with you. Thank you Veggies 2 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. You ask several questions, that I'll respond to, then I will turn back to the COI issues.
 * You ask why DRI is not discussed in WP. Two kinds of reasons.
 * The first is that there is no Master Plan here. People create articles about whatever they like.  There are WP:WikiProjects that work on some subject across many articles, and WikiProjects can and do talk about "white space" that needs filling, but that is as far as it goes. It may just be that no one cared enough to try before.
 * The second is that it is not clear to me that DRI meets WP's WP:NOTABILITY policy. It may be that others have tried before, and the article was deleted before.  I don't know. (I will say more  about NOTABILITY below).
 * About whether the article you drafted was promotional, or not. I cannot see it, so I cannot judge.  But DGG is very very experienced and you should listen to him. (It is generally a very bad sign when a brand new editor, who doesn't really understand WP yet, argues with an experienced editor on something very basic like this. If you really want help, you should stop arguing and start listening, and ask about stuff you don't understand)
 * With regard to "other articles" - first, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this is a bad argument. As I wrote above, people create articles about whatever they like - the same thing with editing. A lot of editors make the mistake of editing in a biased way when they come here. They personally are "fans" or "haters" of X (no conflict of interest per se, but strong, non-neutral POV); others have a COI (they work for X or for a competitor of X), and yet others are paid by X. This all happens a lot, and all of it results in promotional editing.  Sometimes new editors come here, and think that a "good" Wikipedia article is one that makes its subject seem Really Important.  That is not true.  This article, Institute of Financial Accountants, was the subject of conflited editing, and I cleaned it up.  It is not a "good" Wikipedia article but it is decent. That might be an OK model for you. (you may also want to read Avoid academic boosterism which applies this concept to the specific example of universities - you can just replace "university" with "certifying body" and the message should click)
 * Finally (on this level), I suggest that you read WP:Golden rule ( which is a kind of humorous, high-level summary of NOTABILITY), then read the WP:NOTABILITY policy, then read the WP:ORG guideline (which applies the NOTABILITY policy to organizations), and then think about sources you are aware of for DRI. Then go back and re-read all three of those, and consider whether there are really enough independent sources on DRI to meet the NOTABILITY criteria for whether an article on DRI should exist, or not.
 * Turning to the COI issues. Thanks for making it clear that you do have a professional interest in DRI.  That professional interest doesn't constitute a COI, but it does create a risk for bias. (so, maybe you are a "fan", not someone with an actual COI)  Please keep that in mind and please read WP:ADVOCACY to help you write more neutrally.  I hope that was all helpful.
 * Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog - Thank you. This is pretty helpful. I'll study a bit more and see if there is a way here.  I do not doubt any experienced editor here, and appreciate DGG's comments even though it came with some tenseness too.  Yours is very helpful and affords me a basis for which to learn and build.  Thank you.. Veggies 2 (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you are welcome. DGG is a good egg and responds well when people ask real questions - what you wrote on his talk page does come through as kind of attack-y/defensive-y and that sort of thing generally draws a terse response from him. everybody here is human. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jason Binn
I am not employed or paid by Binn or any of his connections, in fact, I never met the guy. I am not related to him, or his magazines and other businesses. The content here is not copyrighted, and is in the public domain. Veggies 2 (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andre Bouchard (judge)


A tag has been placed on Andre Bouchard (judge) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://courts.delaware.gov/chancery/judges.aspx. 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 or other printed material 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 or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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 or image 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 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 removed 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. — Diannaa (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jason Binn for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Binn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jason Binn& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)