User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Joe Decker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

• Johnsieger (talk · contribs)
  • User:Johnsieger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Johnsieger (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) This is John Sieger. I submitted a draft on my band Semi-Twang. I'm new to Wiki, so I may need a little guidance. I kept the article very succinct, but I have had over twenty artists cover my songs. Not the most successful writer and performer in history, but on some level — notable! I am not sure isf the entry was turned down for lack of notability or lack of citations. Please advise.Johnsieger (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi John,

Our policies have a particular thing they mean when they say "notable", and it doesn't always match up with the common usage of the term. (I've argued we should be using a different term, but nevermind that, you're probably more interested in how to get the article published than our internal bureaucracy, and rightly so.)

What's generally necessary for bands is multiple pieces of independent coverage about the band (that is, not interviews or warmed-over press releases) in sources with an editorial process (generally this is going to mean newspapers, magazines, and books) and that talk about the band in some level of detail (more than say, the passing mention in the 7/30/94 Billboard), typically at least a few paragraphs about the band for each of the multiple sources. Certainly having several people cover your songs leads me to think that there might be that sort of coverage out there, I don't see it immediately, but I'm guessing you are familiar with the press Semi-Twang has generated. I can't tell whether the 1988 piece in Madison Magazine goes into depth, but I see there is something there that looks like a sizable review, that might qualify as one of the multiple necessary pieces of coverage.

Anyway, that's the sort of thing we'd want to see the article referenced to and to some extent written to. I hope this helps. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe, You deleted The Slightlys, a Los Angeles rock band, and one of the reasons I read was that they had not been acknowledged by major press, such as the LA Weekly. Today the LA Weekly posted a story/video about The Slightlys. We would really love to have a Wikipedia Presence. Also, since our original article, we won the LA County Fair and a spot on next summer's Warped Tour. We really appreciate all the presence we can get on the internet. Here is the LA Weekly article:

http://www.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2014/10/23/in-battles-of-the-bands-the-slightlys-keep-winning-video

I apologize if I'm doing something wrong, I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks, Ginaballina (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Jean Marinelli

First, you are not doing anything wrong, I recognize that our criteria can be pretty confusing, and I have no doubt you're working in good faith. As to it being confusing, you can see that just above I've had to try and make sense of pretty much the identical policy for a different band for another editor here.

As for your article, the article was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Slightlys, and was deleted based on that same criterion, WP:GNG, which requires multiple sources, each of which must be from a reliable source, each of which must be in-depth, and each of which needs to be independent. Unfortunately, coverage such as interviews are generally not recognized by the community as meeting the last test--if it's predominantly from the subject, rather than written more at arm's length, it's usually not considered to be independent. For this reason, I don't feel that the LA Weekly piece, which meets the other tests but not that one, is enough to allow me to override the result of the original discussion, I'd want to see two sources, and neither interviews.

That having been said,if there are other sources you'd like me to look at I'm happy to. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You deleted Vladimír Moravčík's profile, and I found information that he fought for WMC world title against Yodsanklai Fairtex which makes him notable according to WP:KICK, here are some references: official website article http://www.wmcmuaythai.org/2012/06/15/wmc-champions-yodsanklai-the-hero results: http://boxemag.com/index.php/kick-boxing/item/yodsanklai-retrouve-sont-titre-mondial-wmc Master Sun Tzu (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Strangely, WP is choking at the present moment when I try and dig up the old version of that article. "An error has occurred while searching: We could not complete your search due to a temporary problem. Please try again later." I'll take a look later today, sorry for the delay. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the article, a plain reading of the translated article and WP:KICK seem to confirm your claims. I've also added the reference to the article, but it would be extremely helpful if you would expand the text of the article to include the title fight to make the fighter's notability more apparent to readers going forward, and it might help prevent any unnecessary second round of deletion discussion. Thanks for your work here! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am requesting you restore this article. I am press writing a story about Matt Starr and need the info on this page.

Matt is a prominent NYC artist,

Thanks, V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.43.240 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the article. I would be very wary of using promotional text like that in ... a news article. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Paxminds (talk · contribs)
  • User:Paxminds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to submit an article,I had written an article with simple note.but it got rejected.

Paxminds (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is in regard to Draft:Yatragenie.

The note at the top of the article reads

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

And that is what you need to do. But I realize that what we are asking for may not be obvious.

Every article on Wikipedia is expected to meet our inclusion criteria. We refer to these criteria as "notability criteria", but really they simply help define the line between those subjects we should have an article and those we should not have an article on.

To repeat what the message on your draft said, but in different and hopefully more clear words, every article on Wikipedia should include references to two or more sources.

Each of those sources must talk about the subject in depth. Not just a passing mention, but paragraphs of material.

Each of those sources must be written completely independently from the subject, not the company itself, nor people financially connected with them.

Each of those sources must be written by a reliable source, that is, something like a newspaper, magazine, or book.

If there aren't sources of this sort available, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject.

And finally, what is said about the subject in the article should be primarily based on what is said in the sources that meet all those criteria.

Is that clear? --j⚛e decker^talk 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your help. your great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb808 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Thanks For your comment , Kindly published the articles in main space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberbotking45 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. I see that you've already moved the article into mainspace. However, as it is only sourced to material by the subject himself, it is very likely that if it were to be nominated for deletion right now, that it would be. You can prevent this by adding reliable, arm's-length sources which talk about the subject -- newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, which talk about him, that are not written by him or anyone involved with him in any way. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sanjaye (talk · contribs)
  • User:Sanjaye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to post a stub article till I can ascertain details for a full fledged article. Is there another process of which I am not aware of? Appreciate any support and help you can provide.

Thanks. Sanjaye (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

As to other processes, editors who've made a certain number of edits can directly add articles, but those are subject to potential immediate review for deletion--the point of AfC is to make sure the article has a 50-50 shot or better of surviving any deletion attempts.

Here is my advice:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising your product, service or other business. If you are writing about your own enterprise, it can be quite difficult to write a proper encyclopedia article--and in fact, our policies go out of their way to suggest that you do not try. Please read and understand WP:PSCOI. However, if you do wish to continue writing such an article, here's some advice.

One of the basic bars an article like this is going to have to meet is notability, which is defined under Wikipedia as being shown by coverage in arm's-length, reliable sources. These are usually things such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books or scholarly journal publications, and excludes the sort of "reprinted press releases" common to some local business rags--those sources must be independent and reliable.

My best advice is to start over, and then work at finding those sources. Find out what they talk about, and how. And then write your article based almost entirely on those sources. You can use primary sources to fill in entirely neutral and uncontroversial facts (where's the HQ?), but the use of primary sources should be a minimum.

If those sources do not exist, then it is unlikely that any path you take to creating an article will result in the article existing in the long term.

This process is, in my experience, likely to be frustrating for you if you take any other path. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

hello joe decker,

i am one of the many typedesigners that used your list of pangrams frequently as we need to check every letter in its ‘natural environment’ - not only in english but also in other languages, including diacritics. would you mind restoring this article or give us a hint where we could find the pangrams?

all the best, marcus sterz (FaceTypeFoundry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facetype (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Google still has a cached version of the page at [1], I'd grab it while you can. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Aaaah! We need Pangrams back! Where are they? The link to that cached version is dead. Many people worldwide have been collecting pangrams all their lives, it is a challenge to make a new good one. They are indispensable for showing typefaces. Prof. L.A.W. de Groot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.88.238 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The link still works for me, you might also try searching for List of Pangrams. Alternatively, if you make an account and enable email, I can email you a copy of the article. Once you have the information, you may be able to publish it via Wikia or another similar site. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joe for your good and kind suggestions for the draft article titled e-courts in India. i have done some modifications as per your suggestion and hope the same would serve the purpose.

59.177.203.35 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I will take a look when I get a moment, but in general I'll leave second reviews to the next reviewer, that way you get the benefit of several reviewers. I hope that someone will be along soon. Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for everything and sparing your valuable time. I am always greatful to reviewers of Wikipedia for their continuous and selfless services.

59.177.199.129 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe. The article in question has been approved by MatthewVanitas, one of the best Reviewers on Wikipedia.

Thanks for giving the article a direction and shape that made it acceptable for the inclusion.

Keep the good work going on and all the best.

59.177.199.79 (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mankef (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mankef/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mankef (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe

Thanks for reviewing the article on the band SKUA.

Given that the band recieved fairly good coverage by the BBC in 2002 when Paul left S Club 7 and is mentioned in Guinness Book Of World Records for 2002 plus multiple broadsheet newspapers this year mentioning the release of the single Falling, not to mention SKUA is referenced in the Wikipedia article for S Club 7, does this not add enough outside mentions of the band to adequately demonstrate the notability?

I agree that on the guidelines for notability it may not seem to qualify but in the U.K there was a fair amount of press about the band that I would say satisfies at least one of the notability requirements.

Look forward to hearing from you. Steve.

P.S I have had the article subbed by a journalist so in addition to the notability the article it's self has been improved also.

Hi! I'm not seeing where you've added references to the BBC and Guinness coverage in the draft, we are looking to have the references that show a topic meet our "notability" (inclusion) guidelines actually be present within the article. The easiest way to start learning how to make references on Wikipedia is to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which includes a nice video showing how to use the RefToolbar, which makes working with references a whole lot easier. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok Joe I see, thanks for the guidance. I appreciate your response I will resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankef (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

im writing to ask you to re-instate the Charlotte devaney page, the page has been active for 6 years

please can you give a valid reason for deleting charlotte devaneys page , charlottes page has been active for 6 years shes a hollywood credited actress as well as DJ/producer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_Friends_%26_Alienate_People_(film)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455538/fullcredits

Devaney's article was deleted following a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte_Devaney. Longevity of a prior article is not a factor here. What would be necessary for me to overrule the decision made by consensus of the community above would be evidence that Devaney meets one of our notability guidelines, generally either WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, those policy documents are largely written in cryptic legalese, so, you may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating what our policy docs refer to as notability. I hope that it will be helpful.

Oh, also, you might also take any questions you have over to the WP:Teahouse. They are a Q&A board here on Wikipedia specializing in helping people find their way around our policies and ways, and are a great group of folks. Best of luck. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe, I used WoaS from 2010 and I think it is the best personal wiki. I added some new information to "Draft:Wiki on a Stick" and I also added some comparison info on other pages. Your note "multiple, reliable, arm's length sources" is only to look or download and try this app on https://sourceforge.net/projects/woas/ from my point. I know that you have no time for trying all software on wikipedia, but I let it up to you. Sorry, but I don't have any other reliable evidence for it. There is plugin https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tiddlyfox/ for saving in FF. Thanks Tomas

HI Tomas,

First, the tool sounds nifty. With respect to the sourcing requirements, it is a source of signficant frustration to me that we here at Wikipedia do such a terrible job of communicating our inclusion standards, but our general notability guideline has the strong consensus of the Wikipedia community, and for all its warts, it does serve a handful of important purposes as well. I will try and take a look later this weekend for sources that might actually meet those criteria, you may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 15:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe,

thanks for your answer and for your good job to do wikipedia better and better. I added some external sources about WoaS (wikimatrix.org,vectorlinux.com). I think, it's better then before. Bye, --Tomaswoas (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I added some other references from independent sources Tomaswoas (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Please see WP:External links/Perennial websites for more information on why social media sites, IMDB, YouTube and/or Find-a-Grave are not generally considered reliable secondary sources.

I have definitely looked at the WP you mentioned and found it most informative.

Thank you.

Spike Penetrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikepen (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome, I realize making sense of our policies and guidelines here can be painful. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of Android devices. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)]]

A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted.

I intend to have their deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Howe (officer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton

I'm not familiar with these articles, can't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz.

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No strong feelings, save that I'm sympathetic to DENY. I'm away from home until tomorrow, and I haven't dug into the available sources for either, but I've userfied the articles so that you can take a look at them at User:Joe Decker/Herbert Roff Newton and User:Joe Decker/Richard Howe (officer). Another option for Howe in line with the thinking at the AfD would be to refactor part of it into an article on the Laufen Six, I suppose. In any case, barring something I don't expect, I'm at up at *least* for pulling either or both out of the ashes and relisting. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Also, I'd be more than happy to just kick this up to DRV for a suggested outcome if you'd like. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 17:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll DRV them. I think Newton probably depends on how we regard Deputy Lieutenants. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Commander Herbert Roff Newton. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! --j⚛e decker^talk 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe,
I noticed that you were the closer for the FDRMX article. I was wondering if it'd be possible for me to recreate the page, as I feel it's relevant and there are quite a few links to it from other Wikipedia pages. What do you think?
Jane

Hi Jane,

Links to it may not be sufficient, we would require (see WP:42 multiple independent reliable sources which discuss the topic in detail. In terms of precisely what we mean by that, you may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful. If you have sources that you think that meet those criteria, point me at them from here, and I'll let you know what I can do. Thanks, --j⚛e decker^talk 18:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the tags, and think I support the idea. Is there a talkpage discussion somewhere for it? DMacks (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't created one, my bad. I will. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Online_pharmacy#Proposed_merge is up now. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on AfC! DMacks (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:) Thanks! Have a great weekend, or what's left of it! --j⚛e decker^talk 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joe Decker for accepting the article and great cleanup.

Regarding redirect i believe that the theme and purpose of Indian context and general online pharmacy topic are different and this would make the merger tedious.

As a viable alternative, the present article must be further developed to reflect Indian position in a better manner and then a tag of main article can be placed at the online pharmacy article with some additional inputs at the online pharmacy article.

Thanks for everything.

59.177.205.145 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I do think an Indian perspective is important--but be sure to stick to sources with an editorial process (often newspapers or magazines). I think one thing I would like to see added is a better estimate of the size of that market overall. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flajolet-Martin algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uniformly distributed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe, I am writing you on behalf of the deletion of our company page, U-blox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-blox). As reasons for deletion you cited that certain contributors have not made update in a long time - this is because either that person (Alicia Montaya) left the company in 2008, or other contributors who are unknown to me.

I (Carl Fenger) work at u-blox now since 2009 and have been responsible for maintaining our company Wiki page since then. You cited an absence of references on Google about our firm, I believe this is a mistake, perhaps you typed in "ublox" instead of "u-blox". You will see that we a publically traded company on the Swiss stock exchange (SIX:UBXN) with revenues of over 220 Million USD per year. We employ over 550 people on 4 continents including two location in the USA (Reston, VA and San Diego).

Our was founded in 1997, and we are currently the leading provider of global positioning modules worldwide. In addition, we manufacture and market modules for cellular communications (approx. 6 percent market share today), and a new line of Bluetooth and WiFi modules as the result of a recent acquisition of Swedish ConnectBlue.

I would appreciate it if you could review this information and give me your feedback ASAP concerning the restoration of our Wiki page.

Kind regards, Carl Fenger u-blox

Hi Carl,

I deleted the page after assessing that the consensus of the community was to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-blox.

It is very possible, however, that there are sources which meet our notability guideline for corporations. Certainly listed corporations often do.

However, to have an article, there must not just be coverage, but coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH.

More or less, we will need two or more sources that discuss the company in general and in depth (not just database listings, for example, but generally a couple paragraphs of text or more), from reliable independent publications (generally newspapers, magazines), and which are neither reprinted press releases nor routine coverage (financing rounds, executive appointments, deal announcements, and such are considered routine).

Such sources need not be in English.

If you know of coverage of this sort, point me at some, and I will be happy to take a look. If the sources you provide obviously meet this requirement, I can restore the article on my own. If there is any doubt, however, I wouldn't be able to. If you feel that I've improperly summarized the discussion I linked above, you could appeal that at WP:DRV, but given that the views expressed there were unanimous, I think the next step is to find appropriate sources that show that WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH can be met. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe, and thanks for the swift response. Yes, u-blox has been written about by numerous 3rd party publications, here are a few recent links to reputable industry magazines (just the English language ones, we have many in the German speaking regions as are HQ is based in Switzerland): - u-blox stock quotation page on Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/UBXN:SW - Our listing and corporate information on the Swiss Stock Exchange http://www.six-swiss-exchange.com/shares/security_info_en.html?id=CH0033361673CHF4 - Recent article and video interview with our CEO at CTIA published in GPS World magazine: http://gpsworld.com/u-blox-rolls-out-new-module-outlines-marketing-strategy/ - A recent article about our technology published in US-based Connected World magazine: http://connectedworld.com/paving-the-way-to-the-internet-of-things/ - Another article recently published in a US magazine "Trends in Vehicle Tracking Technology" http://eecatalog.com/automotive/2014/10/09/trends-in-vehicle-tracking-technology/

Let me know if this is sufficent to re-instate our page. Kind regards, Carl Fenger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfenger (talk • contribs) 12:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The article Andrei Kirilenko (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:TWODABS, direct hatnote better in cases like this

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done, that is, I responded there. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I came across the removal of the Pangram list and found your name attached to it.

It seems like a frustrating proposition to ask why it was removed since the arguments made to remove seem just as invalid as to keep it. Seems like people just wanted to trim something for the sake of trimming since comments made indicated a lack of awareness of its usefulness or how its inclusion augmented the article to define and explore pangrams.

I am a type designer. I design typefaces for more than just Latin languages. This list was always helpful for me to present and test quick specimen files for typefaces (fonts) under development in any number of languages (yes, including Cherokee). Removal of this list is short-sighted and actually diminishes the purported value of Wikipedia. In the short-term, I'd ask that you provide a complete list of the pangrams to me and ask that you review the necessity to remove the lists and speak to more qualified individuals who would actually use and/or refer to it or even add to it… and support its inclusion in the article.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerour (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The basic philosophy of what Wikipedia includes and excludes is probably too long a subject to really engage with here, and I myself don't always agree with the community consensus, but I do try and follow it. That is part of what allows us to actually get anything done around here.

I am sympathetic to you feeling frustrated. I've provided some practical alternatives that would allow you to have and even publish the data when I discussed this at User_talk:Joe_Decker/Archive_21#List_of_Pangrams. You can also find a copy at [2]. If you feel that my result is in error, you can appeal it to WP:Deletion Review. If you would like me to mail you a copy of the old article, I'm happy to do so. What I can't do is to override the consensus of the community on my own. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You can also clean up and maintain the list at [3] if you wish. I've created it based on the content here, but will be happy to hand over the keys if you wish to maintain the resource. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Joe… yes on all counts and thank you. I will begin the process of appeal now, would greatly appreciate you emailing that article to me, and actually would be willing to maintain and the resource and will mobilize the type community to help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerour (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've sent you an email with the list, and a suggestion. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Joe,

First thanks for your comment. I appreciate what you are trying to do, and the spirit of Wikipedia even though I'm mostly a user rather than a contributor/editor. Please accept the comments below with my assurance that I mean no disrespect or offense.

Second, the photograph that was not attributed is an official government photo. After scouring around for way too much time on the city's website and on Wikipedia to figure out how to attribute it, as well as how to make those corrections to the file, I give up. I simply don't have time for it.

Third, I have deleted the passage upon which you commented and replaced it with what I hope is a properly-attributed quote that essentially says the same thing.

Fourth, however, I suspect from your comment that this was just an example of what you find objectionable. If so, the article may be doomed because this process of substituting and attributing every statement is going to exceed my bandwidth. I thought I did a pretty good job of maintaining neutrality, but I guess there's a fine line between sharing one's knowledge (which is far more than most) and editorializing.

Fifth, I just read an article lamenting lack of contributors to Wikipedia. Not surprising. It's a lot of work to do it right, and most folks don't have time for it. Especially those who are the most knowledgeable about a given subject, who have lives, mouths to feed, etc.

I think I can safely say that I'm in the 99.99th percentile when it comes to general knowledge of Scottsdale politics and politicians. Given my experience with this one article (about six hours invested so far) I just don't know how I could possibly package my knowledge of the subject in an efficient and acceptable manner.

Happy to hear your raw thoughts on any of this, and simply abandon or gut the article if necessary.--JohnDWashington (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I owe you a longer response, one will be coming later today. Sorry for the delay. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've ben slow to respond (some surprises at work today), but here I am. Draft:Bob_Littlefield

First, thank you for your patience and your thoughtful response here.

Yes, and thank you, the replacement of the passage with an attributed source is exactly the way we work to try and honor our WP:NPOV policy.

And as you say, I think there are probably more places that that sort of change can be made. As always -- "what do the reliable arm's length sources say, and how do they say it?"is a very valid way to approach writing neutral text. The next reviewer, when you submit again (and you should, I believe we should have an article on this fellow) will probably have more comments. If you can find places where you're writing things that aren't prseent in those reliable sources and remove/rewrite them, you'll have a better chance at acceptance next time around.

I didn't explain why I dropped the copyrgiht wording in my previous comment very well, and that may have caused some confusion, and I'm sorry about that. We see a lot of articles (this comes up a ton with music bios, but to a lesser extent with politicans) where sometimes people cut and paste text from a web site. If they're the copyright owner there's a way that we can deal with that, but often we find those sorts of problems later on and they can be painful to remove from an article that has been around a long time--so part of my job here is to try and make sure that doesn't slip through. I don't see any problems with the text in that way, though, and I should have just not mentioned that at all. My apologies.

I did not notice, when I reviewed the article, that there were questions about the copyright of the images. But I believe that AZ and it's municipalities, like most states (but not the federal government) do assert copyright on official portraits and such, and of course most works produced by private individuals are copyrighted under law unless they are explicitly licensed otherwise. The way to fix that is to get the copyright holder to write us, instructions are at WP:Donating copyrighted materials.

I have no doubt that you are extremely well educated about politicians, far more than myself, in Arizona and Scottsdale in particualr. There was no intent to suggest otherwise. My own task (volunteer though it may be) here, as with the other reviewers, is to make sure that things are not only accurate but verifiable by reliable sources and neutrally presented, which can be quite different than writing for other venues. It can be very frustrating. In any case, If you read anything I wrote as suggesting you weren't educated or took what I said personally, let me apologize. With a backlog of about 2400 editors waiting for reviews, we sometimes write a bit more tersely here than we really should.

Anyway, my primary suggestions are--reread the article and look to reduce it to things that are easily WP:V verified by third-aprty sources. This is, ironically, harder when you actually know something about the subject. An alternate strategy you may consider is to "hit for a singe" instead of a home run, writing a short article, getting it accepted, and then building the article over time after it's accepted.

And I understand, finally, that you have limitations on your time, as do we all. Sorry this is frustrating. Best regards, --j⚛e decker^talk 00:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

I've updated my draft [[4]] page with multiple, reliable, arm's length sources. I hope that's enough for now. I will continue to edit this page but would be nice to be public. thanks — Preceding unsignedYuckfou2 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)comment added by Yuckfou2 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The film played Oct. 30th in Las Vegas in its world premiere at the Pollygrind Film Festival's closing night event ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]

The film played in Corpus Christi as part of the opening night of the South Texas Underground Film Festival ^[6]

The film won 10 awards ^[7], ^[8],

Restore the page or EXPLAIN your reasons for its deletion. Its a notable movie by a long established director. If it is not restored, I can only believe it was deleted due to your personal malicious vandalism.

Do me a favor. Read WP:AGF and try again.

In the meantime, you may want to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Interrogation of Cheryl Cooper. I concluded that a consensus of the community believed the article did not meet our inclusion guidelines.

The sources above don't really give me a good enough reason to discount their reasoning. I see unreliable sources in some cases, reprinted press releases or mere calendar listings in others, but while subjective, the sources there don't appear to meet the requirement of in-depth coverage.

You are welcome to appeal this to WP:DRV, I don't really have a stake in the outcome. Best of luck. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe, my first article was unfortunately deleted for copyright issues. Can you help me understand more specifically what the issue(s) were and how I can go about re-editing and re-submitting the article? I have reviewed your Secret Decoder Ring. Re: the G12 reference, I do have permission from the copyright owner for some parts of the article. However, I'm also happy to go in and re-write the appropriate section(s) to give them a neutral point of view. I'm willing to put in the time to make whatever edits are necessary. Thanks for any assistance/guidance. -A.

Addendum: my mistake, it looks like User talk:Cullen328 made the deletion. I will contact him to learn more.

A0royal (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer, I was the editor who identified the problem in the first place.

More or less, part or all of the article was taken from http://illumagear.com/safety-products/the-halo-light), or text which had the same provenance as that text.

This is a problem for a couple reasons, but the one which we act most urgently on is copyright. Pretty much any text that anyone writes is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly licensed PD or what have you. Having such copyrighted text in an article here puts Wikipedia in violation of that copyright, and we remove such violations promptly.

You are welcome to write a new draft. But I hope you'll listen to the rest of what I have to say, because I may save you another trip around the review process.

Even if you could simply rewrite what the manufacturer said about itself in your own words, you might be able to avoid the copyright issue, but there would be a second issue.

We need articles to reflect neutral, uninvolved, reliable views on the company. Not the company's view of itself.

More generally?

One of the basic bars an article like this is going to have to meet is notability, which is defined under Wikipedia as being shown by coverage in arm's-length, reliable sources. These are usually things such as newspaper articles and magazine articles, and excludes the sort of "reprinted press releases" common to some local business rags--those sources must be independent and reliable.

My best advice is to start over, and then work at finding those sources. Find out what they talk about, and how. And then write your article based almost entirely on those sources. You can use primary sources to fill in entirely neutral and uncontroversial facts (where's the HQ?), but the use of primary sources should be a minimum.

This process is likely to be frustrating for you if you take any other path.

I wish you the best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

xc

Chaudharyrashad (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you also delete Santos Rodríguez?--Yankees10 23:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sorry 'bout that, thanks for letting me know. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And Ronald Bermudez and Francisco Martinez (baseball)? Thanks.--Yankees10 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. And it is obviously time for me to put down the keyboard for the evening, that was sloppy. Thanks again. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you approved an AFC submission by User:Gardeningleave of the article Gardening Leave (charity). I was concerned that there might be an issue with either that user's user name, or with the conflict of interest guidelines. Based on the name and edits by that user, it seems to me that the user must be associated with the charity. My understanding is that user names aren't supposed to be the names on organizations, and that people are strongly discouraged from writing about the organizations that they work for. I wasn't totally sure on the policy though, so I figured I would ask you if you think there is a problem with either the user name or that they wrote an article about the organization they presumably belong to. Thanks. Calathan (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes, such names are unambiguously a policy violation, WP:ORGNAME spells it out, and a report at WP:UAA would be entirely appropriate.

I don't focus my efforts at AfC on username enforcement. and you don't go through a hundred new submissions there without seeing a number of username violations. I'm honestly quite conflicted about whether it is best for the encyclopedia to immediately pursue these violations or not, or to look at them down the road a bit. To use this particular case as an example, I think this stub is close enough to being a useful article (far from perfect, but better than most) that we're glad for it, and the username is providing a warning label for the next editor to come along to immediately notice that there may be COI issues.

If we took an immediate no-holds-barred approach to username policy enforcement at AfC, we would probably have to deal with a lot fewer article drafts, and we'd push away a lot of COI editors, but we would also miss out on at least a few articles that we're better of promoting, and we might easily flood UAA.

Anyway, I have no good answers here, except to say that yes, the username is an unambiguous policy violation. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. I guess I will report this user at WP:UAA. Calathan (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Actually, I think the usual instructions suggest asking the editor to change their name voluntarily before reporting, but you will want to ask someone at UAA to be sure. Have a great day! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe...

Thank you for looking at the CMT San Jose page... you said there was one part that was unattributed, can you be a bit clearer?... also is there anything else I need to do to the article? Thanks!... Niall

Hi! I haven't done a full review -- more or less, the fact that that text was similar to that from another article made me want to leave a note so that the eventual reviewer would double-check that the text was not taken from another external copyrighted source. We should probably have a note on the talk page if it's just originally from that other Wikipedia article, sorry for the legal fuss, but that's just the result of our CC-BY-SA licensing here on the site.

Due to time constraints I'm going to have to leave a full review for another editor, but a few quick things that may help a reviewer accept the article more quickly:

• Whether the topic is found to meet our notability criteria will probably be the thing the reviewer is most keenly looking to see. That criteria will ask that the article have multiple references, each of which is reliable, in-depth, arm's length, and in the case of an organization like this, "not routine coverage." Of the references you've provided (and thank you!), the Mercury News articles are likely to be key to the reviewer's judgement, do they talk about CMT SJ in detail, independently (interviews and obits tend to get discounted on this), and exceed more than routine calendar listings. I'm optimistic, but any sort of independent journalistic profile piece on CMT SJ you an list will make it easier for the reviewer to accept the article.
• I don't immediately see text verbatim taken from other sources, but the reviewer will do more in the way of spot checks on that.
• Minor stuff: I fixed a few spacing issues, and the "disambiguation needed" links for you--one tip: we generally only link a particular term to its wikipedia article once, so I removed some of the extra links to Broadway theater. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Joe,

I do not understand why you deleted my article about the Whelen 4004 Series. I included information but did not finish it. If that is the reason than I compleatly understand why you did this.

The article was deleted following a community discussion, which you can read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whelen 4000 Series. It's written somewhat impenetrably with abbreviations for some of our policies, so I will try and put the issue into plain English.

More or less, our primary "bar" for inclusion of a topic on Wikipedia is called the general notability guideline. To have an article on Wikipedia, with very few exceptions, there needs to be multiple sources, each of which is from a reliable source (newspaper, magazines, books generally, but the key test is is there a full editorial process), each of which must be independent (this excludes anything from the organization itself, it's suppliers, interviews, press releases, even reprinted press releases in business weeklies), and which discusses the topic in detail. The participants in the discussion felt that such sources not only weren't in the article but that weren't likely to exist.

Making sense of all the ifs, ands and buts of that policy is sort of a full time job, but you may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating whether something meets our so-called notability guideline. I hope that it will be helpful. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You undeleted the old revisions of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary to aid discussion at my RfA. Do you have any objection to re-deleting them now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

None, of course. I've gone ahead and done that, but feel free to tweak/correct as necessary. And again, congratulations... any friend of Bayes is a friend of mine! --j⚛e decker^talk 05:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe Decker. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Always a valuable reminder. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Farhan Faris (talk · contribs)
  • User:Farhan Faris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can you edit an upload my article

Farhan Faris (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not possible.

You have uploaded copyrighted content, and that is in violation of our policies, and puts Wikipedia in the position of violating the copyright of the person who originally wrote that text. After the article has been deleted, you can write an article on the subject in your own words.

I would recommend reading WP:Your first article before doing so.

While you may be, or may be associated with, the copyright holder of the work which appears to match the text you have submitted, it is usually the case that such material (particularly any autobiographical material) is often unsuitable for Wikipedia. The goals of such writing are different, self-written biographies or descriptions aim to put the subject in a positive and sometimes glowing light, whereas our encyclopedia aspires to neutral, balanced, dry and objective summaries.

If you still believe you would like to donate a license to the copyrighted text, your next step is to read WP:Donating copyrighted materials, that page explains how to proceed, and a few important things you will have to understand before you do. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

we are the owner of Cwmalls.com,if we want to keep the same "about us"page both on linkedin and wikipedia.how can we make it accepted by wikipedia?

While you may be, or may be associated with, the copyright holder of the work which appears to match the text you have submitted, it is usually the case that such material (particularly any autobiographical material) is often unsuitable for Wikipedia. The goals of such writing are different, self-written biographies or descriptions aim to put the subject in a positive and sometimes glowing light, whereas our encyclopedia aspires to neutral, balanced, dry and objective summaries.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising your product, service or other business. If you are writing about your own enterprise, it can be quite difficult to write a proper encyclopedia article--and in fact, our policies go out of their way to suggest that you do not try. Please read and understand WP:PSCOI. However, if you do wish to continue writing such an article, here's some advice.

One of the basic bars an article like this is going to have to meet is notability, which is defined under Wikipedia as being shown by coverage in arm's-length, reliable sources. These are usually things such as newspaper articles and magazine articles, and excludes the sort of "reprinted press releases" common to some local business rags--those sources must be independent and reliable.

My best advice is to start over, and then work at finding those sources. Find out what they talk about, and how. And then write your article based almost entirely on those sources. You can use primary sources to fill in entirely neutral and uncontroversial facts (where's the HQ?), but the use of primary sources should be a minimum.

While in theory it is possible to identify yourself as the legal copyright owner, and instructions for doing so are at WP:Donating copyrighted materials, I suspect you will find that doing so will only lead you to run into another decline for the types of reasons indicated above, and in the long run, be wasted effort on your part, something which we would probably both prefer to avoid.

Thanks for understanding. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 18:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you neglect obvious solecisms in edits like this one (all the incorrectly capitalized letters in section headings and the use of a hyphen rather than an en-dash in "Lieb–Thirring")? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

AfC is triage, no more, no less. You are welcome to help, however. Over two thousand editors are waiting for their articles to be looked at. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Joe I Noticed you deleted the article Borderland (AJAM). After looking at the reasoning and as someone who worked on that page why I fail to see why that article was deleted. It in my interpretation met none of the criteria for being deleted. 19 November 2014 at 05:51 (UTC)

That's an interesting case--as a SOFTDELETE, it was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion with little participation, and would normally be eligible for restoration the first time someone asked.

On review of the deleted article, I find that contains text copied from copyrighted material, for example, some text was taken from [5]. The copyright issues prevent me from restoring the article. However, you are welcome to create a new article. However, you must write in your own words. Similarly, you must include references which show that the subject of the article meets our general notability guideline, which more or less requires the inclusion of two or more reliable, editorially sound, in-depth discussions of the subject by sources entirely independent from the subject. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 06:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For articles about a species, where the species has a common English name in addition to the scientific name, is there a preference for which name should be at the top of the article vs. only in a redirect? Treichar (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles cover the question in the context of species names, and both are more or less a clarification of a more general policy, WP:COMMONNAME. (That is an English Wikipedia policy, some of the other language-specific Wikis have policies which may vary.) I'm not at all familiar with this specific subject, so I will certainly be more than happy to bow to your best guess. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• 182.178.31.66 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nuh Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to add sources to this article, they are references from some magazine articles, I'm unsure on how to do this, how can I go about adding them or do I need to send scans of them to someone to get them verified?

182.178.31.66 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you don't need scans. While it is helpful when sources are on-line, that is, for many types of subjects, simply not feasible. But do be sure that the sources are things that have a formal editorial process, this generally means newspapers, magazines, books, and so forth. Try and put in enough information that someone who might concievably have access to the source could find it given the information you've given. For example, if it's a book, don't just give the name of the book, an author and a page number would also be useful. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joe! I've resubmitted the article with some sources for review. I hope I've added them correctly!

I noticed that you deleted the Will Thompson article and I would like to write an article under this name, I was instructed to talk to you about this.

Yep. There was a community discussion about the article, which you can read at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Will_Thompson. I didn't participate in the discussion, my role in this was to assess the discussion and determine the result of it under our policies, from the opinions presented, it appeared that the topic did not meet our inclusion ("notability") standard.

The basic concern here is that the actor did not appear, according to the participants in that discussion, to have received in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.

That sort of coverage is required, as you can read at WP:BASIC. Making more sense of what we mean by independent and reliable can be confusing .. all of our policies seem a maze of legalese at times, but you may also want take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of meeting our basic inclusion criteria in something closer to plain English.

If you were to find a good deal of material that shows that Thompson has gotten that sort of coverage, I may be able to override the consensus of the community, otherwise, you'd have to appeal to deletion review. Probably the first step here is to ask if you do think there is more coverage out there that meets those requirements. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you meant to create a redirect to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Dear. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done That was a close call, but I there was an above-average level of vandalism in the article during the prior six months. I gave it another half year. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe Decker, I see you moved a page earlier for a user who then moved it to Wikipedia:IEEF, I am not sure of the background on the article but thought you might want to help the user correct the issue. If not let me know and I will have a crack. Cheers ZooPro 11:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I put it back, and left a note. I suspect that the editor may have been attempting to put it into the article namespace, but hopefully they will respond. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• 41.242.136.25 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Gprkcf/Grey Post (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Thanks for reviewing my article. i am still confused as to what is required to be done. Our reference point is our website name.. What should i be doing in order to meet the required requisites of wikipedia 41.242.136.25 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry that our guidelines are so confusing.

The short answer is that you need to add two or more references to the article. These references must verify what's said in the article, and be reliable sources (generally newspapers, magazines, books), independent of the subject (not a press release, not an interview, in other words, something completely at arm's length), and discuss the subject in detail. The full legalese of what is required there is at WP:GNG. Specifics on how to format references can be found at WP:REFB. If that type of reference doesn't exist for the topic, then our policy is that we should not have an article on the topic, the idea of an encyclopedia entry is that it be based on neutral, reliable, third-party sources. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, Please Help. I have been trying to edit one of the photographs on Wikimedia of Ambassador J.B. Elliott as I used the wrong caption for it. It should be changed from of Voroshilov to Brezhnev. Terrible mistake on my part. The first presentation was to Voroshilov in January 1960. The second presentation was to Brezhnev in July 1960. Can you please change it for me on his page? The correct caption for the photograph should read. Ambassador John Banks Elliott after presenting of his credentials to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev. Moscow, July 1960.

File:Ambassador J.B. Elliott

I have downloaded the correct photograph for Voroshilov on Wikimedia. Ambassador John Banks Elliott after presentation of his credentials to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Mr. K.E. Voroshilov. Moscow, January 1960.

File:Ambassador John Banks Elliott

I have also got copies of both original letters of accreditation. The 1st one from Queen Elizabeth II and the 2nd from President Kwame Nkrumah. I have not entered these two documents on Wikimedia as I would like your advice as to how it can be incorporated on his page.

I have practically finished the write up of his page and waiting for him to give me the go ahead which I hope will be next week. So Joe Decker, here we go again. I have also gathered links, newspaper clippings and book links on Google that are relevant to the page. I Will get back to you soon with a complete new page. Hope it all works out.

Kind regards, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

First, I'll try and help you with the image. I've fixed the image for the moment, at least partially. The "filename" of the image is a different thing than the caption, and the filename doesn't normally show in an article. To correct the Breshnev error, we at least have to fix the caption (which you did), but we can't fix the filename without asking for the image to be renamed.

I'll have to ask you to request the renaming, but I can give you complete instructions.

First, go to the link here: [6]

At the top, to the right of "View History" and "Edit" and so forth there will either be a menu called "More" or a menu item called "Move". If it's "More", you can find "Move" after you click on "More". IN any case, you want "Move."

When you click on that a window will open. There will be a big table on top for reasons renames are allowed, this is one of those cases. There will be three things for you to do below this table. On the first line, you'll correct the title to the correct title. In the second line, pull down the item numbered 3, which says something about misleading/inaccurate names. On the third line you can briefly explain further. Then press the green "request renaming" button.

It'll probably be done in a few hours. Thanks for understanding, these requests go more smoothly if they are initiated by the person to uploaded the image.

Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, Thank you so much. I followed the instructions above to the latter and hope I succeeded in correcting the caption. K-rgds, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dorothy Elliot,

That appears to have done the trick.

Thanks! --Joe

Hi Joe,

I am confused by the Zane Benefits page deletion. The reason for deletion seems to be based on one person's opinion that seems very emotional and without any fact.

For example," the new company is selling product to poor black people in Detroit knowing its model is probably illegal".  

EBY does not have clear evidence behind his statements. The New York Times articles do not state Zane Benefits is illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zane_Benefits

I would like to resubmit page and would like feedback to make it better if it lacking in certain areas. Thank you for your help. Leahjb5

I actually discounted the argument that Zane was doing something illegal, so that wasn't an argument that received weight in my decision, as we have articles on all sorts of illegal things.

If that were the reason I deleted the article, you would be right to complain.

The two primary arguments advanced during the discussion that conformed with policy were these:

1. There was some debate as to whether the topic met our primary inclusion standard, the general notability guideline. WP:42 provides a quick introduction to it.
2. The article was uniformly considered promotional. While our policies and guidelines generally prefer improving a non-neutral bit of advertising rather than deleting it, WP:TNT does have some weight in precedent, and suggests that there is a time where an article is so far from meeting our standards of independent notability and neutrality that it is better simply removed.

In combination, I found the weight of those two arguments to show a policy-based consensus for deletion.

My best suggestion for creating a new article would be to make use of our Articles for Creation process. Make the article at Draft:Zane Benefits. Try and work on two things, which will end up being related. First, try and find reliable, third-party sources which discuss Zane in detail. These would generally be newspapers, magazines, books. Be sure to exclude things which are more or less reprinted press releases, give preference to sources which provide a wide view of Zane. Second, write the article not from what you know, or from what Zane says about itself, but from what those sources say--and use all the available sources, not just the positive ones. I suspect the omission of reliable sources debating the finances of the organization played a role in the views expressed during the deletion discussion.

Once you have a new draft, you can get a review without having to deal with it immediately being deleted by adding {{submit}} to the page. It may take a few days, there's a backlog, but a number of editors to review those drafts, and the Draft process gives a way for you to build an article that's having trouble meeting our criteria some breathing space for discussion and back and forth without having to start over from scratch.

You may also wish to ask questions at the WP:Teahouse, which can be very useful in terms of learning what we need in terms of an article.

Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strulock (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tsu (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article submission was made in mid-October, and was a much more complete (with references) article. Why was the crappy stub that was created in mid-November approved ahead of my submission? Aren't articles reviewed in the order submitted? Colossal waste of time really turns me off of contributing to Wikipedia. Strulock (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that (agreed, poor) stub even went through the Articles for Creation process. Once you've made a couple dozen edits and been around for four days, it isn't required.

To answer your other question, no, articles submitted to Articles for Creation are not processed in order. In general, around 80% of incoming stubs are declined or speedy deleted within the first 48 hours, with a few accepted in that time frame. We have to at least try and take a preliminary look at incoming things fast, because we get a ton of copyright and libel type material at the front, and often we can make a very quick call. For the rest, there are simply not enough volunteers, and please note that I emphasize that word, to keep up. Right now there are 2,500 or so people waiting for a review. About six hundred have been waiting for more than 4 weeks.

It is a terrible situation. I didn't create it. If you think it should be better, leave a note at the Village Pump.

As far as why your draft may have taken longer than average, I would guess that your draft got a slow response because it was right at the hairy edge of meeting our general notability guideline. A lot of reviewers don't like making close calls. Had the "other Tsu article" gone through AfC, I would have declined it.

Anyway, I see you've supplanted the other article with your own, which I think is an improvement. Thank you.

If you don't mind, I'll now get back to trying to make that backlog better.

Best regards, --j⚛e decker^talk 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe Decker, please, could you review my draft Draft:Wiki_on_a_Stick again? I added more references about it. Thanks Tomaswoas (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can give you some quick advice if not a full review. First, there's a 54-word section pulled from [7], and while the software may be GPL I don't see immediately that the description has been released from copyright, which gets us into the problems discussed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

Second, you've added a lot of sources, but it would be worth recapping what Wikipedia considers reliable at this point, and how that interacts with the basic bar the references here have to hit, the "notability" guideline at WP:GNG. Please read it, and then to make sense of it, also try reading User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. The wiki pages of various sorts, which make up a lot of sources, are not going to be considered reliable sources under this guideline, generally we're looking for things that have been written and then separately put through an editorial process. Most magazines, books, newspapers, qualify, fewer blogs. There's certainly a precedent for using TechRepublic, and the About link might qualify, ... it will help whoever does a formal review next if there are fewer sources that don't meet our reliability guidelines, so that the reviewer can find the others.

Your best chance at a quick positive review is to fix the copyright issue, cut back the sources that don't meet the reliability guideline even if that means the article is shorter (it's much easier to get a short article reviewed), and to make sure that the remaining sources are reliable, independent, and that a couple that are easy to find talk about Wiki on a Stick in detail. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 07:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you can help out with calming down an aggressive editor at Forest and Talk:Forest? A couple of us plain-ol' editors have tried, but we haven't seem to gotten to a place of harmonious editing. You can, of course, decide it isn't worth it. I'm pretty much at that point.

There have been less than civil editors throughout the history of WP. I would say up until a few years ago, the ratio of civil to uncivil editors on well-read articles was substantially more than 1, so that civil editors would "dogpile" on the more unruly ones and get them to edit cooperatively, or at least get out of the way. I have noticed over the last 1-2 years an exodus of sensible editors from WP, so now the ratio is much less favorable. I've found editing to have gotten much more unpleasant, so I've definitely decreased my involvement.

Anyway, you don't need to do anything --- It's just nice to complain sometimes. —hike395 (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi hi hike395, I'll try and take a look in the morning, it looks like that will take some getting up to speed. I'm sorry you're frustrated -- I go through a lot of periods like that myself here, but you have done some really incredible work with WikiProject Mountains and the like, just wanted to let you know your work was very much appreciated. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just kept going, rephrasing, and posting to the Talk page. I think it's better now. Just needed to vent. —hike395 (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally understood, I have a few stories of my own.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 07:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nailed it. Keep up the good work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) --j⚛e decker^talk 03:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. I fully understand why the lack of references lead to this being declined but hopefully the reference I since added address the problem? If not what do I need to do to meet the required standards? Any help in this area would be much appreciated as this is the first time I have attempted anything of this nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.115.119 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That is signficantly better. I will have to leave it to the next reviewer to make a final decision, one who is more familiar with this type of subject and our separate notability guidelines, but you have clearly taken a large step toward addressing my own concerns. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am a publicist from Bengal. I noticed that you have discussed and deleted Saptaswa Basu (page). I was not the creator of that page but I can confirm that he is a notable personality in Bengal. I have recreated the page and have given numerous more links to published articles about his works including Zeenews, Festival focus and other links. There are numerous articles existing in wikipedia with just 3 or 4 links, with incorrect info too, but they are not facing this tag of deletion. You can see pages Mir Afsar Ali, Subhasree Ganguly etc where the references are not much strong too. On the contrary, now I have added many references to SAPTASWA BASU to make it a source for reliable info. To the truest of my knowledge, the page is not any kind of advertisement or promotion. Please look into the matter. I have requested some film personalities too to join wikipedia and support the article. I am a basic writer and would really appreciate your help in improving the article. I will be adding more reference links of current works too. Please check the page and approve it. I will be waiting for your response. Here are the additional links that I have given, which may compensate for the lesser number of link present earlier.

http://www.washingtonbanglaradio.com/content/62758511-interview-director-saptaswa-basu-shares-thoughts-pyschological-drama-thriller-forlo

http://119.82.71.49/thestatesman/story.aspx?id=5284&boxid=18587953&ed_date=2014-9-27&ed_code=820009&ed_page=19#.VCY6NEctXx8

http://www.ebela.in/paper/16-9-28@11@2014.html (Regional paper)

https://in.news.yahoo.com/lights-camera-action-183000316.html

https://www.academia.edu/2156551/Closing_Day_of_Imphal_International_Short_Film_Festival_2012

http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/bollywood/-the-forlorn-opens-manipur-s-first-international-film-fest_109542.html

http://www.festivalfocus.org/news.php?uid=1201

http://www.thestatesman.co.in/news/78972--I-ve-decided-to-have-little-dreams-and-move-on-.html

Some more links are present too, I will search and add once the page is functional.Roon100 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked for the use of multiple accounts, so I'll leave this for the moment.

Thank you, by the way, for noting that you are a publicist. I both understand that you get paid to get articles here (directly or indirectly), which can create conflict here, but it is best to be open. If nobody has pointed you at it, WP:PSCOI is a good overview on policies you'd want to be aware of in your shoes. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cjmoran (talk · contribs)
  • User:Cjmoran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe, I'm writing to ask you to please put my article on Mike Murphy, drummer back into my sandbox so I can correct my mistakes. Thank you, CJ

Cjmoran (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi CJ,

I can't do that, the article included text taken from another source, which is copyrighted, and including that material on the site would put Wikipedia in the spot of publishing a copyright violation. That should not prevent you from starting over, but please write in your own words. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: I'd also strongly recommend reading WP:Your first article. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe, I am bringing the topic of the deletion of the "u-blox" page. I read the reasons of the deletion, but the fact is u-blox is a 15-year old, publicly traded company with a market capitalization of over 800M USD. Please visit Bloomberg to verify:

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/UBXN:SW

We have numerous referring publications all over the Internet, I gave you some previous examples! We are a real company with over 4500 customers and 550 employees located around the world, including San Diego and Reston, Virginia.

I appreciate your update on this issue. Kind regards Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfenger (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carl,

Nobody is saying that the company doesn't exist. A summary of what the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-blox, says is only that the coverage editors here have been able to find so far does not meet our inclusion criteria for corporations and organizations.

That criteria is WP:CORP, but reading that without having spent time at Wikipedia can be a bit of a minefield, because several terms which appear to be common English words are used as "terms of art", we have very specific things we mean by "reliable", "independent", and so forth, and that creates understandable confusion.

In plain English, the subject has to have been written about in at arm's length in a couple of articles/books that underwent an editorial process and from sources that have a reputation for fact-checking, and for which go beyond routine announcements. Peeking through Google News Archives I see that it has received a lot of coverage in general, a lot of what I see at first are routine announcements, but it is quite possible deeper coverage exists, and if it does, we can certainly have an article on the subject. I know the requirement seems arbitrary, but it's not, it helps us insure we honor a variety of our goals in terms of building an encyclopedia.

Looking at the sources you had presented before (and I apparently missed that, but it's in my archives:

[8] doesn't get to WP:CORPDEPTH

[9] doesn't get to WP:CORPDEPTH

[10] is largely based on an announcement/interview

[11] was co-written by the communications director at the company involved, not an independent source--whose name is identical to your username.

[12] - A number of references (literally, "refer to such-and-such") in the article to U-blox but doesn't reach signficant coverage, and may also have trouble meeting the reliability requirement.

And if you feel that I've erred, you are welcome to appeal at deletion review, Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)