User talk:Nathanoverlock

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dublin Health Clinic (March 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dublin Health Clinic 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:Dublin Health Clinic, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 14:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nathanoverlock! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! EROS message 14:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Nathanoverlock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

To keep up to date with interesting news and developments, you may also wish to subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MAXNP (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia: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 "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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

COI

If you have a conflict of interest when writing an article, you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Nathanoverlock. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Nathanoverlock|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
• there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above

November 2018

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Hello, I'm J. M.. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

More

Have you actually read what I posted above? You have not declared a COI, you appear not to have read what counts as an independent reference, since you tell me again that US News (ref 1) is one of your independent sources, despite the page stating Content is provided by the firm. I didn't check all your refs, since you just left them as bare urls but most I did check were clearly either directly to your own pages, press releases or affiliated sites like the Acbanet eulogy. You also find much room for accolades, but none for criticism. I have no intention of restoring unless you give some indication of having read and understood what I've written above, and being prepared to do something about it.

You appear to have no understanding at present of why two admins (me and RoySmith as speedy deletion nominator) thought that this was blatant promotion even as a draft. You also said Otherwise, your reason for removal was not relevant and the page will be re-posted. I strongly suggest that it would be unwise to recreate unilaterally; like it or not if you want this page restored in an edited (cleaned-up) form, you will have to deal with me, and Roy if he wishes to comment.

Please post any further comments here, I'm now watching this page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

I have read everything you wrote, and was well aware of the requirements before writing this page. Despite the relatively new account, I have used Wikipedia for well over a decade. While I was asked to create this Wikipedia page, I do not work for this company, have no prior connection at all to them and see no reason to specify a conflict of interest. You will see that any links to the website go directly to biographies or published, peer reviewed case studies. If you actually read the U.S. News article as you've so rudely implied I did not do to your own content, you would see that the "content provided by firm" stipulation refers exclusively to the section labelled "overview," as it appears the firm provided U.S. News with a brief history of their organisation. You will not that this is not the section of the page referenced in the Wiki article.

Criticism would be more than fair to include if there were any published by reliable sources that fit your standards. I did not come across any in my research, and do not see a pattern of criticism as a necessity to publish pages on other law firms. Nathanoverlock (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement regarding COI. You will understand that it's a question that's bound to be asked for any company article, and required an answer. I don't know what you are seeing here that I'm not. The entire page seems to be company promo from "Overview" to "Call 1-866-218-3776 for a free consultation with any one of our attorneys.". The content it's referencing is uncontroversial, but I would have thought that the fact that it's based in California could have been referenced to something better than a company-written first-person promo?

The same attitude to WP:RS sources seems to be prevalent throughout. Next ref, GJEL are best known for achieving record-setting settlements seems to be sourced to an interview with good old "Andy" (sigh...), not an independent third-party source. Claims of records shouldn't be sourced to a company boss, and how you can verify that's what they are best known for, I have no idea, just weasel words, like "Notably". You first reference for the hip transplant is a personal blog, and since the NYT is a good source for the important payout fact, it's unnecessary.

You have commented on other law firm pages, but note that many of those will have been written before the new, detailed, notability requirements I listed in my first comments came into force, and would not now meet the referencing standard

I'm not planning to go through the whole article here. The firm appears to be notable, and you have replied to the COI request. I'm prepared to restore, but since two admins thought it was too promotional even as a draft, I would edit it in the process to format the refs, tone down the promo and indicate problematic claims or sources. If you are prepared to proceed on that basis, let me know and I'll do that. Note that events in RL mean that there could be a delay of a couple of days. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your willingness to restore this. I propose amending the opening paragraphs to the following: GJEL Accident Attorneys is an American law firm based in California. GJEL are noteworthy for their involvement in a number of record-setting personal injury cases, including the 2004 wrongful heart surgery allegations against Tenet Healthcare. Founded in 1972 by partners Andy Gillen and Ralph Jacobson, GJEL now operate offices in Oakland, CA, Fresno, CA, San Jose, CA, Hayward, CA, Walnut Creek, CA and Orinda, CA."

I had assumed that existing law firm pages were the best reference for structuring a new one, but thank you for clarifying that they are not.

I am still confused about citing a third-party reviewed and published company profile to site the fact that "GJEL Accident Attorneys is an American law firm based in California." Is your issue that the page discusses more than that?

Thank you, Nathanoverlock (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

as I indicated, I might not get a chance to restore for a day or two, so just a couple of drive-by comments. Personally, I wouldn't bother referencing that they are based in California; it's not an opinion, and even I don't think you have made it up! In those circumstances, it seems perverse to reference a basic fact to what is basically a first-person advert. Secondly, your suggested text gives an opinion that they are noteworthy, whereas you should just be giving us facts, and not your view of their notability. Note that even if you can find someone else who says they are noteworthy in a published source, it's still an opinion, not a verifiable fact Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Restored as draft

I made these changes. I formatted most of the refs, but there are a couple the script missed that you should fix manually. Note that refs should followe punctuation, not the other way around. I'm a Brit, so even though I've tried to follow US spelling, you should check.

Some issues remain, but since this is a draft, you have time to address them.

• Too many references are still to your own sites. Sometimes that isn't critical, but there are examples like Founders Gillin and Jacobson have been recognized as authorities in California legal practice, with Gillin's texts utilized by the University of California's California's Continuing Education of the Board program, and Jacobson's opinions cited by the California Supreme Court, which is sourced to them. Why should we believe that? Should be sourced to an external third-party body, or removed as a worthless unsupported claim
• GJEL Attorneys are recognized by the American Bar Association, Alameda County Bar Association[32] and the State Bar of California. aren't these mandatory?
• largest amount ever awarded by jury against Contra Costa County, I can see that state or national records are significant, but a county record hardly seems significant enough to be more than aa bit of promotional padding
• Lead sections summarise the article and don't need separate citations, so I've reformatted that.
• Two of your cases are titles as X v. Y, two are not. For consistency and more neutrality, all should be formatted in the former style

On a personal note, I used to be an expert witness in PI case, and the differences between English and US law never cease to surprise me. Here, there is a higher standard of proof required, no jury, since they are civil cases, and no punitive damages. It's easy to see why if there is a choice, people choose US Courts for PI, just as they choose English or Scottish courts for libel! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Thank you for taking the time to do that - I'll change those references as needed.

I know it's counter intuitive, but Contra Costa is actually bigger than 9 U.S. States and is home to AC Transit. That's why it was included.

The formatting of the notable cases and settlements is due to the fact that only two went to trial. The settled cases do not have published case names that I am aware of.

I hope that resolves those last two points for you!

Best,

Nathan

MfD nomination of Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys

Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GJEL Accident Attorneys (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys 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:GJEL Accident Attorneys, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)