User talk:HopeAfrique

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|HopeAfrique}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

April 2011

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HopeAfrique. Thank you. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 04:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s my brief response, and I believe I’m also speaking for the other account users suspected of sock-puppetry. The relation between the accounts lies in the fact that all three of us (the editors/account holders) work for the same institution, use the same office computers for editing, and often travel together for work-related projects, using whatever internet access that is available. Also, it was I (the principal creator of the AfD) who invited the other two editors to help contribute to the quality and thrust of the article since they are familiar with the subject. My motivation in inviting them to help re-write the article was prompted by the fact that a previous version of the article was deleted on the grounds that the subject was not a significant person to merit a biographical article, and that some sources previously cited were dead ones or not reliable. Believing, however, that the subject of the article was noteworthy and that the weaknesses perceived in the earlier version could be overcome, I encouraged the other editors to improve my article by offering additional credible evidence from reliable sources— accurate sources which are available, but were apparently overlooked or missed by those who succeeded in deleting the earlier version. Thus, when the present discussion on the AfD was called to my attention, I naturally alerted the other editors to it. If it was against policy for editors who are related in the manner described above to all participate in an AfD discussion, it certainly was not known to us. We all felt the issue of notability was going to be decided solely on the quality of the evidence, not necessarily the number of votes cast one way or the other for the AfD.

But after reading the policy on sock-puppetry, I can certainly see how the other two accounts may be perceived as “meat-puppets,” if not “sock-puppets”—although that was never intended. I never thought inviting colleagues to improve on an article would be considered sock-puppetry since we have the same interest in the subject, often discuss the subject among our selves, and sometimes use the same office computers and available internet connection for editing. I want to assure you that, as far as the AfD discussion is concerned, there was no intent at all to create “meat-puppet” accounts to disrupt or skew the discussion or to rack up votes. I’m sorry if this is the impression that has been created. It was not at all intended that way. I believe I speak for the other two editors when I say that none of us thought we were using our accounts in a prohibited way. On the contrary, we all felt that the AfD issue was NOT going to be settled on majority vote, or some subjective opinions of editors (for or against), but solely on the strength of the arguments and its compliance with Wikipedia policy on notability.

I still believe that the article is noteworthy and that it should be undeleted. If the delete decision was in any way influenced by a suspicion that the “keep” editors were sock-puppets, and hence their arguments were discounted on that ground, in the light of the above good faith explanation, I will urge a reconsideration. If, however, the decisive issue that determined the outcome of the admin’s decision was a lack of evidence on notability, I will be willing to work towards providing additional evidence that would counter the google search argument that apparently became the basis of the delete decision. I am open to any suggestions. Thank you! HopeAfrique (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the checkuser who worked the case of this reply about the sockpuppetry. As for the rest of your comment, I will reply when I have more time (which might be today or tomorrow). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 15:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, HopeAfrique, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hello Firsfron, I’m the creator of the Samuel Koranteng-Pipim AfD. Would you kindly explain the reason or rationale behind the decision to delete the AfD? Was the decision based solely on the relative merits of the arguments for notability advanced by the “keep” and “delete” editors in the discussion? Will the article be undeleted if a more exhaustive google search provides evidence that the subject is noteworthy? Thanks for your help.HopeAfrique (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HopeAfrique,

The article was deleted because the consensus was that there wasn't much noteworthy about the subject of the article; no reliable sources were found that indicated the notability of the subject. If you'd like, I can put an undeleted copy of the article in your userspace so that you have a chance to work on it. Before it can be moved back into article space, it must conform to Wikipedia guidelines. You should endeavor to explain in the article why Samuel Koranteng-Pipim has lasting notability. Source the article with references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject: books, periodicals, and scholarly journals which discuss the subject in depth. Use the links that I provided above as your guidelines. Avoid advertising. Write neutrally in an encyclopedic tone. (And of course, stick to one account when discussing the article's merits).

Once you have an article that is well-sourced, ping my talk page again and I'll see if it can possibly be moved back into article space. Let me know if this plan is acceptable to you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Firsfron. Will appreciate receiving the undeleted copy of the article so as to work on it as suggested.HopeAfrique (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but is this what your looking for ? administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles
Mlpearc powwow 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HopeAfrique, I have undeleted the page and moved it to User:HopeAfrique/Sandbox so that you can continue to work on improving the article. It is meant to be a temporary solution until the article is worthy of restoring to article space. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firsfron, I greatly appreciate your suggestions! I've substantially re-worked the article in my sandbox, incorporating verifiable sources that establish notability and showing (1) how the subject's views have greatly impacted major discussions in his church and also (2) how in his present role outside the academic setting, his ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment have inspired previously disenfranchised students and young people, and propelled them into a powerful force of change within the church. I trust that the article is now ready to go. Thanks for the help. It was very useful! HopeAfrique (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HopeAfrique,

I appreciate your work on this article, but there are still many problems with the content.

The first problem is that the article is not written in a neutral way. Encyclopedia articles are written neutrally; they discuss the achievements of their subjects without ever having to resort to stroking the ego of their subject. The article reads as if it is a press release for Mr. Pipim. A sentence like "Though skilled in biblical and theological scholarship, Pipim’s rare gifts as a motivator, trainer, and inspiring leader became evident when, in 1998, his church leadership in Michigan appointed him to direct its newly created department of Public Campus Ministries to cater for the spiritual needs of students on secular university campuses." would be more neutrally written as "In 1998, Pipim was appointed the director of the newly created department of Public Campus Ministries to cater to the spiritual needs of students on secular university campuses." Every sentence is written in this manner; there's nothing wrong with writing positive things, but not every paragraph should be stuffed with peacock terminology.

There's also a problem with the sourcing. Many of the statements in the article are still entirely unsourced, and several of the statements are not really sourced by the sources purporting to support the text. Source #4 purports to support the statement that Mr. Pipim's philosophy has "inspired previously disenfranchised students and young people". But the source says nothing about previously disenfranchised students, only that his philosophy did inspire CAMPUS students. As this article is written now, I'm not willing yet to move it back into article space. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your tremendous insight. I will go back and work on it. It will take several days, but I'm committed to getting it right. On another note, given the countless hours I myself have already invested in this project, I'm pleasantly amazed at how you are able to make all that time to help out! Hopefully, after this article is successfully done, I also would be in a position to assist future editors others. You're an excellent coach!HopeAfrique (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your patience. Let me know when the article is ready. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firsfron, I hope your mother's day weekend was a good one. Sorry the re-writing took me much longer than I thought. Hope you'll find the latest version acceptable. Thanks!HopeAfrique (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, HA. I hope to review the reworked article tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After removing additional unsourced content and promotional material, I have restored the content to Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! It's definitely a better article than I started with. Your coaching has been a great learning experience. I'd reciprocate to others the lessons learned. PS. I see that my Username is in red. Does it matter whether red or blue? How do I get rid of the red? Again, thanks a great deal!HopeAfrique (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Congratulations on getting that article up to scratch! It does look quite a bit better than it did. As for your username being redlinked, that's because you do not at present have a userpage. I have a custom signature, but if I used the traditional signature it would look like "Ks0stm (talk)". Note that the Ks0stm is blue because I have a userpage, linked to by the part that says "Ks0stm". Most users create userpages as their own space to do stuff with, usually to tell about themselves and keep information for themselves. Examples of different styles of userpages can be found at my userpage, Firstfron's, User:Fetchcomms, User:Cyclonebiskit, or pretty much anywhere else you see a user's signature (just click on the username in the signature). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Hope. Just wondering how you're getting along here. Do you have any questions about anything? Pipim? Any other articles? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the road right now. Will get back to you by tomorrow.--HopeAfrique (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

On the road right now. Will get back to you by tomorrow.--HopeAfrique (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]