User talk:EJohn59: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:40, 2 December 2009

Earlier stuff

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the journal is almost certainly notable, and I'm prepared to defend it, but please please do not enter bare stubs such as these. show at least the date it began, the name of the editor in chief and earlier eds. in chief--but nobody else--the ISSN, and the main indexing services that cover it/ Add if you can the JCR impact factor & rank in the field (I did this for you, having it right at hand). I'd advise you to add this very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion. You can use JCR and Ulrichs as refs. And if you are, by any chance, connected with the journal or the company, please see our Business FAQ. Feel free to contact me if you need any help, on my talk p. or by email. I'm one of the administrators who frequently work on this sort of topic here. DGG (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see from the articles you have been contributing that you're unconnected, but we have had some problems with journal publishers from time to time. Be sure not to copy material from the journal website, including especially the description of the purposes and intended audience--that part is usually jargon anyway. If the journal has published any really notable article, that cn be listed also. The reason to emphasize editors in chief, is that being the ed. of a major journals like this is considered as good evidence of notability, under the WP:PROF rule of being recognized as an authority in one's field.DGG (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. R. C. Greenwood

There's a few small issues with adding back the reference to the material in the UC article. First, as a matter of policy, Wikipedia strongly discourages "self-citing" as a practice for supporting the material in an article; content references usually need to be external to Wikipedia. Second, when we do make internal references, it's almost always as links to whole articles, though sometimes its as links to sub-headings (such as Elephant#Tusks), and for the purpose of providing additional context. However, this depends on the stability of sub-headings; sub-head links get broken from time to time as sub-heads are changed. (The distinction between first and second is the distinction between "this is why X is true" and "see also...".) Third, the relevant material isn't particularly well placed for the long term. While a scandal is playing out, it's often appropriate to have some content about it in the main article of related major topics; in this particular case, the scandal is relatively incidental to the UC system as a whole and will probably be edited out of that article in the long term now that it's played out, or edited down to a short one-liner about Dynes resigning over a controversy. I suspect there's enough reference material out there to support a short stand-alone article on the incident; if that should occur, then the Greenwood article should link to it in the normal way, as should the main UC article. Just where in the encyclopedia certain material should be is often a judgment call, and in my judgment it's probably not significant enough to UC to be carried in the long term in the main UC article. Studerby (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Ng

Hi I tried to create a page on him but it was deleted with in 15 min (before I could even save it once) or add some notable info. I do not have all of the info on him so I do not know how to procede. It seems like wikipedia likes actors, poker players and a Chinese-Elvis but not martial art masters. Best, --Ducha mps_comb MFA 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

If you look you will see most of the article is unsourced and lacking citations for factual information about this WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are whole entire subsections with no citations whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson page

Hi - I replied on my talk page to make the conversation more readable -- Hebrides (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N C Yeh

Hey, can you take a look at this article, and see if your Wiki network can help me retrieve that Time Magazine ref. I saw the paper copy in the library, but apparently only subscribers to Time can retrieve article. --Kgwu24 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)KG[reply]

Journal on Appl Math

Published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology It features scholarly articles on mathematical applications in allied fields notably computer science, mechanics, astrophysics, geophysics, and high-energy physics. Its pedigree came from the “MIT Journal of Mathematics and Physics” which was founded by the MIT Mathematics Department in 1920. The Journal changed to its present name in 1969.

Print ISSN: 0022-2526 Online ISSN: 1467-9590

Edited by: Professor David J. Benney, Department of Mathematics, MIT

ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking: 2007: 30/165 Applied Mathematics
Impact Factor: 1.194

H S Seung

Ole buddy, you're well connected. How 'bout take a look at this page and see if some of your Wiki friends can help to eliminate orphan status.--Kgwu24 (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)KG[reply]

I've de-orphaned it – 3 incoming links now. Cheers — Hebrides (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Donations

If people want to see some discussions on this topic, please go to DGG's talk page in this section EJ--EJohn59 (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from Wikimedia Fooundation

Dear E. John,

Thank you for your gift of USD 20.00 to the Wikimedia Foundation, received on December 1, 2009.

Your donation celebrates everything Wikipedia stands for: the power of information, freedom, sharing, learning and discovery. Thank you so much for helping keep Wikipedia freely available for its 330 million readers around the world.

Many people love Wikipedia, but surprisingly few know it's run by a non-profit. Please help us spread the word, by forwarding this e-mail to a few of your friends.

If you have questions about your donation, please send a message to donate@wikimedia.org. To learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation, visit our blog at http://blog.wikimedia.org/ or our website at http://wikimediafoundation.org/. [Note: other sites deleted by EJ]

And again, thank you. I'm really, really happy to have your help.

Sincerely Yours,

Sue Gardner Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

This letter can serve as a record for tax purposes. The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit charitable corporation with 501(c)(3) tax exempt status in the United States. No goods or services were provided, in whole or in part, for this contribution. Tax-exempt number: 20-0049703