JoeNMLC, you are invited to the Teahouse!
2020 Talk
Your edit at Template:Sangamon County, IllinoisHi JoeNMLC, Please be careful with editing templates, you added a second state parameter. I've removed it now - RichT|C|E-Mail 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message2021 Talk
Requesting some helpGreetings, Thanks for your recent help in the article Black Sea trade and economy to create a suitable lead from article content. I would like to request you to provide similar help to create the lead for the article History of the Black Sea if possible. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
Speedy deletion nomination of Herbert Friedman![]()
A tag has been placed on Herbert Friedman 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 real person or group of people 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 deleting administrator. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Hayes F.C.Hi there, just to let you know I reverted your addition of Aaron Patton as a "See also" to the Hayes F.C. article. There are over 120 former Hayes players with articles, so there's no particular reason to single out one fairly insignificant player to be listed as a "see also" on the main club article IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I've also reverted several "see alsos" of unrelated tech companies. If you have some specific relationship that you've found reference to and want to highlight, you're welcome to edit the text of the articles to reflect that, with citations. But there was no obvious connection between any of the companies. They work in different fields, in different countries, and have no overlapping ownership, mission, or products. Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Observatory chronometer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronometer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Removal of Amal Al-AwadhiHello, Please Remove Amal Al-Awadhi From Notable People Section, as it not fair of adding 1 person and leaving many more important people who have pages in Wikipedia, it is better to remove than adding 100 other names. Thank you. Sportshrejmann (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
MovingHi. Long-established articles, especially edited by more than one person, such as José Gralha, should not be moved to draft space. Please use WP:AfD to delete those articles, or tag them for improvements for those not suitable for deletion. Station1 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
De-orphaningHi Joe, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for working on the orphaned articles backlog. As one of the most active de-orphaners, I can certainly say it's a place that needs more eyes. That being said, I need to ask you to slow down and put more thought into the de-orphaning process. There is no deadline, and no need to feel stress over a backlog that has existed for longer than some of our younger editors :) Quality analysis of how best to de-orphan a given article in order to serve the reader is better than great speed. A "see also" link to an article that isn't clearly related does nothing to help the reader and defeats the process of de-orphaning in the first place. Additionally, many orphans are better off deleted as non-notable or merged elsewhere, which are options you don't seem to consider. For example, you added San Benedetto, Florence to the see also section of Zenobius of Florence without any clear, referenced context as to why they're related. There's no indication that Immaculate Heart of Mary School, Bulacan and Immaculate Heart of Mary College-Parañaque are related in any way. In other cases, the article being de-orphaned might be better off not having an article at all: 75th Year of Independence Day of India is probably better off merged into Independence Day (India). List of popes from the Tuscolo family is unsourced, has a misspelled title, and is duplicative of the list already existing at Counts of Tusculum (I've now redirected it). These are just a few examples pulled from your recent contribs. I can see from the messages already on your talk page here that several experienced editors have asked you about this already, but it seems like your approach hasn't really changed. Please slow down and take more care with what you are doing. Stick to the really easy orphans until you get the hang of it. If you have any questions about how to de-orphan a certain article, I'm happy to help, or you can just leave it and move on to the next one. Like I said - there's no rush, and no need to stress. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Premeditated Chaos: Recently, I finished going through Biography articles at Category:Orphaned articles from January 2011, and skipped the "impossible/difficult" articles. Yesterday, I started a "second pass" through this cat., looking at non-bio articles. Also "discovered" and see how better context is still needed for many articles. And quite a number of bio. articles without the "listas" (on talk page) are also missing article "DEFAULTSORT". There definitely is enough variety of Wikipedia updates to keep me interested. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageNomination of Lucas, British Columbia for deletion![]() The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas, British Columbia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Wishing you a happy 2022!
JoeNMLC, Have a great 2022 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2022 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2022}} to user talk pages.
– North America1000 17:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC) p:astro/eventsHi JoeNMLC - I was just checking if you were working on this month's events for the Astronomy portal, and if you still wanted to keep our arrangement of alternating months. If not, that's ok! I was just wondering since I haven't heard from you in a while. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of New York University faculty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Lists of football clubs in de-orphaned articlesHello. I would like to ask you to stop adding List of football clubs in X country to the football player articles. List of football clubs and specific player are undoubtedly related to broader topic of association football, but I struggle to see how they related to each other and what help such links serve for the readers. Please try to update the update pattern you're using. Thank you. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Year articlesHi, please note that the year articles (i.e. 1983) are for people who have notability across multiple countries. There are "Year in Country" articles (i.e. 1983 in France) for people wo are only notable in one country (or a very few). Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
1979 in Equatorial Guinea moved to draftspaceAn article you recently created, 1979 in Equatorial Guinea, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "
Your submission at Articles for creation: 1979 in Equatorial Guinea has been accepted 1979 in Equatorial Guinea, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! Bkissin (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC) |
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Hi JoeNMLC! Thank you for your edits to Valbona Sako. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Durrës into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Some thoughts on orphanage stuff
Hey, I noticed you made some edits recently to some orphans I have PROD'd/AfD'd and I had some thoughts about it. It seems to me that there's not much point spending time trying to de-orphan something that's likely to be deleted, first because if it's not notable then it's not likely to have any good spots to link it from, and second if it's going to be deleted, those links will just be removed anyway. I also noticed that you're adding de-orphaning templates/messages to the talk pages of some orphaned articles. As much as I think it's great that you're trying to spread the word, I'm not sure it's all that useful in actually getting articles de-orphaned. Most of these pages are little-seen backwaters (check the page information for hits on the talk page - less than 10 a month in most cases for old orphans) and they already have the orphaned tag on the article, so posting on the talk page is a bit redundant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: - One of my family was an orphan so I've been interested in helping with these on Wikipedia. Now that I'm retired my energy level varies from day-to-day, trying to "take the weekend off". Thanks for letting me know about the Talk pages Pageviews, did not know availabe on Pageinformation. I do understand there are some articless that will remain orphan forever. Just wish they could somehow be "gathered together" with some common topic. I seem to recall at least one football (soccer) article with about 5 biographies, each bio with its own section. I do have a "Work list" (on userpage) to be more organized & that is helpful.
- For Category:Unassessed biography articles that I had worked on in the past, there are several sub-sections. Wondering if it would be helpful for Orphan articles to make category subsections by topic? What do you think? Sort of like those for "Stub sorting" - i.e. Culture, People, Religion, Science, Sports, etc. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, JoeNMLC,
- I couldn't tell by your talk page comment on Medaid4kids and MIZY Center whether you wanted to halt the proposed deletion of these articles. They've now been deleted but if you would like to continue to work on them, please ask for them to be restored at WP:REFUND. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is sort of a rudimentary version of what you're thinking of on Category:All orphaned articles, which lists a bunch of subtopics and uses the in-wiki search function to list the results. I'm not a big fan of that method but unfortunately I'm not sure how it could be made better without a lot of legwork in creating a subcategory structure that mirrors the stub sorting process.
- For myself, I like to use the PetScan tool to dredge by category, which works quite well for my purposes as I find it's more efficient to rip through a bunch of the same type of article at once (often paired with a list). The tool looks a little complicated but is actually fairly easy to use. On User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox2, I have a big list of pre-set queries for categories with high numbers of orphans; you're welcome to pop in and work off any of them if you'd like.
- PS I think it's really cool that you're relaxing post-retirement with Wikipedia :) And really sweet to pick your area of focus based on your family! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: - Thanks for mentioning that Filter this category by topic on cat. page. I had seen it but not ever "connected" with it's usefulness. When working on Astronomy articles I had used that PetScan tool but did not know how to make those wikilinks like on your sandbox. Thank you for your help, it just makes life a bit easier. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
1966 in the Soviet Union moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 1966 in the Soviet Union, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: 1966 in the Soviet Union (March 23)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:1966 in the Soviet Union and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:1966 in the Soviet Union, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: 1966 in the Soviet Union has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Greenman (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Oliver (musician) (April 5)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Oliver (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Peter Oliver (musician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Chiego and Newark
This edit added William J. Chiego to the List of people from Newark, New Jersey. The source cited isn't live, but an archived version says nothing about his being from Newark, nor is there some other source in his article to connect him to Newark. Do you have anything to establish a connection to Newark? Alansohn (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Alansohn: - William J. Chiego is "Jr.". His father is "Sr.". Today I found this obit. at "http://files.usgwarchives.net/nj/monmouth/obits/coaststarobits02.txt" for death of his mother "CHIEGO, Rose M". It shows Newark connection for family. Do not know if that is sufficient. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a more detailed obituary" of Chiego Sr., who was born in Newark. The obit lists four other places in New Jersey where the senior Chiego lived. I add a source for Chiego Jr. that says that he lived and went to high school in Red Bank. There is a family connection to Newark, but I don't think that it supports a connection for William J. Chiego. What do you think? Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Alansohn: - Lately I've been chipping away at Orphan articles. Doing cite's is something I rarely do & rely very much on Templates. So I am not sure how to answer-not enough experience. BTW, The "William J. Chiego" article can be updated since he retired as director of McNay Art Museum in 2016. I did add a SA section (plus cite) to the Museum article. You're welcome to update as I need to get back to de-orphaning some more of the 86,000+ articles. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a more detailed obituary" of Chiego Sr., who was born in Newark. The obit lists four other places in New Jersey where the senior Chiego lived. I add a source for Chiego Jr. that says that he lived and went to high school in Red Bank. There is a family connection to Newark, but I don't think that it supports a connection for William J. Chiego. What do you think? Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of List of years in Brunei for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220619143747im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Brunei until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
North8000 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
RE: Draftification of Claude François Bruno Siblot
I moved this page you draftified back to mainspace. It is generally bad practice to draftify a page older than around 6 months old; this particular page is 10 years old. As the subject is notable and there is a corresponding French Wikipedia article, then the best duty would just be to tag it with Twinkle tags, or if you're feeling spicy and have the language knowledge, perhaps translating it. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- After a review, I also reverted Flavia Vento and Sajjad Rahbar for also being far too old. I have nominated Sajjad Rahbar for deletion as the point is well-taken and the sourcing is non-existant. I think the sourcing provided in the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article may be enough to give Flavia Vento WP:GNG, but if you feel otherwise, then nominate it for AfD.
- Remember: per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftification should never be used as an alternative for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Curbon7: Thanks for the draftify info. It did not occur to me about having those articles to be deleted. I did look at Twinkle & it looks rather complicated, so will not install Twinkle for now. The reason those articles are so old is because I'm working through Orphan articles backlog. I just need to say "Next" for any of those bare-bones/minimum stub articles & not useup my time trying to improve (which may be impossible). So no more Draftify on these old articles. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, JoeNMLC
Thank you for creating List of years in Republic of the Congo.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
good start
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, JoeNMLC
Thank you for creating List of years in Colombia.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good start
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, JoeNMLC
Thank you for creating List of years in Cuba.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good start
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
General History of Latin American link ending orphan status deleted
I appreciate that you tried to end the orphan status of a page, but I have deleted the link for General History of Latin America on the Latin America page. The publication had been posted on the UNESCO website, but it is "no longer available". An internet search found no evidence that is archived somewhere. I am going to nominate the page for deletion.Amuseclio (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Amuseclio
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, JoeNMLC
Thank you for creating 1973 in Botswana.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good start
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
Hello, I'm Pizzaplayer219. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2007 in Syria, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. THE Pizzaplayer!TALK TO MEE!! contribs 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"see also" de-orphaning
Hey Joe, I've noticed you making quite a few "see also" style de-orphanings recently. I know both myself and other users have asked you more than once to be more cautious with those in the past, but it seems like it's still ongoing and I wanted to remind you why those are not really useful except in extreme cases. The point of de-orphaning is to build the web and enable readers to reach articles that may be of interest to them via inline links. Using see also to de-orphan rarely contributes to that goal, and instead just de-orphans for de-orphaning's sake.
On top of that, see also sections should be tightly curated, and need to be strongly related to the topic so they will be useful to the reader. Putting individual people in see also sections of broad topics is almost never useful unless the person is very tightly related to the topic, and in those cases they should usually be mentioned in the text instead. The same goes for taxonomy articles like Aniserica, which you put as a "see also" in Ericaceae. Ericaceae is a large family with 120+ genera in it across 9 subfamilies; these genera cannot all be placed in the see also, or it would become wildly cluttered. As it turned out, Aniserica isn't even a valid genus anymore, so it wound up as a redirect - this kind of cleanup of bad or duplicate articles is a secondary benefit of de-orphaning work.
I know you mean well and want to reduce the backlog, but it's important to do so in a useful and thoughtful way that improves articles, otherwise we may as well not do it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for taking the time to help me. On today's first de-orphan article (Open Source Alliance of Central Asia) I added that organization's founding into 2011 in Afghanistan article "October" section. While reading article I see in August section, cite [45] is very large. Wondering if this is normal or acceptable? Could you look at this & see if it needs fixing? Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: - Thanks for correcting [45] ref. I know WP is not perfect & we all make mistakes at times, so always looking to improve where possible. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: for orphan article Organizational assimilation, I added wikilink & cite into "Further reading" section of Organizational information theory. Is this Okay there or should it be moved to another location into body of article? I did not remove the orphan tag. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The way you de-orphaned Open Source Alliance of Central Asia was good, but I don't think the subject is notable - I've added a PROD tag to it. Please remember that deletion is a valid option for orphans whose subjects don't appear to be notable based on the availability of sourcing. Good spot with the weird reference though, someone copied an enormous amount of text from a New York Times article into Wikipedia, which is a copyright violation. I've removed it.
- For organizational assimilation, I appreciate what you were trying to do, but the way you added to the "Further reading" section there is not really in line with how those sections normally work. You can look at Wikipedia:Further reading for some more information on it, but basically it's a list of additional publications that may be of interest to readers on the topic. There shouldn't really be prose in those sections.
- On top of that, the link there is especially tenuous as Frederic M. Jablin was only the editor of the textbook that the cited chapter appeared in, not its author. (Karl E. Weick and Susan J. Ashford are the authors of "Learning in Organizations". The next bit, "In Frederic M. Jablin and Linda L. Putnam (Ed.)," means that that chapter appeared in a textbook edited by Jablin and Putnam).
- What I did instead was link to it in the text of organizational culture, which is a fairly obvious parent topic for organizational assimilation: here's my diff. "Organizational culture" as an article kind of sucks and needs to be reorganized, but at least there's an organic link in the text to organizational assimilation with a ref. An interested reader can easily follow that link to see the concept. If some editor in the future wants to expand on it, they could do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos:, Yes, for "organizational assimilation", I was thinking the same thing about "Organizational culture" but uncertain where or how to fit for a good context. And what you did with the two ref. definitely is an improvement. Again, thanks for your efforts - real learning moments for me. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: for orphan article Organizational assimilation, I added wikilink & cite into "Further reading" section of Organizational information theory. Is this Okay there or should it be moved to another location into body of article? I did not remove the orphan tag. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Year articles
Please stop adding unreferenced entries to the Year articles. I have enough work to do getting rid of the ones that are already present, without having to undo yet more. Deb (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Deb and Premeditated Chaos: Ok, got it. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)