User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Deletion review for IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century. 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. Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Please I hope that I hope you're not going to rush for taking decision and I hope that you read some thoroughly all the debates. the International Federation of Football History & Statistics is realy a notable organisation. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Your comment at the end confuses me greatly, however. No one has argued that IFFHS is not a notable organization. In any case, I wish you the best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's my false because I don't explain very well. I mean that the article removed is notable because it's called about the top (greatest) clubs of each continent, the list is published and approved by all football organisations and IFFHS is notable. Sorry for my bad english. Besr regards and thank you. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored Draft:Cyclic corrosion testing

Because OTRS received permission to re-use content, I restored Draft:Cyclic corrosion testing that you had declined (and which had been deleted) due to copyvio. You may want to review/revise your review of that submission now that copyvio is no longer an issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mailtor

I'm confused how the Mailtor AfD was closed with a consensus to redirect. Only one person even mentioned the idea and the only reason it's listed at comparison of webmail providers is because the creator of the Mailtor article added it. To establish the subject isn't notable via AfD but to not only let the listing remain but to retain a redirect to it is pretty non-standard. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are considered both cheap and useful as search terms ... when they point somewhere. There's generally a fair bit of leeway and subjective judgment that goes into whether or not a redirect is indicated. I agree with you there is consensus that Mailtor is not notable, but as long as it's listed at the Comparison table, I think there's a strong presumption that the redirect should stay. I should make it clear that there is no consensus to keep the topic in the table, though, and that the redirect should follow whatever happens at that article. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the meaning of that close, thank you for pointing out that it was unclear. I believe that this result is within my remit and closer discretion. I don't have strong feelings about the content, don't know the software, etc., so if you'd like to appeal, it's nothing I would have any particular concern over. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redirects are cheap, but there was no consensus to do so. By that precedent, I could create a promotional article for my non-notable product or myself, add product/me to a bunch of lists, and when the article is found via AfD to not be notable, I still get to keep my list items and have my name/product redirect to them? I've not seen this before. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all on alternatives to deletion, in my view, merely a consensus for "not notable", e.g., "not keep". At any rate, if you'd like to visit DRV, please do so with my blessing. If you're more interested in getting this out of the Wikipedia, I'd suggest removing it from the table, and dealing with any BRDs, the redirect will go with little fuss once it's out of the table. Of course, "both" is also a completely sensible option. I completely appreciate your note--and your frustration. Best regards, --j⚛e decker^talk 22:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as a heads up: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_23#Mailtor. I hope you don't take this as an accusation of some sort. There are plenty of instances I'd agree with you about redirecting, but this one just doesn't set good precedents and doesn't jibe with best practices for AfD procedures in my view. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries--I don't take it as personal, and I have a very high regard for you and your participation at AfD. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Boyack

Hi Joe Decker: Just a notice, you have performed multiple closures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Boyack. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was not so smart! I'll fix it, seriously, thanks for letting me know. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the close. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi Joe

Hope you are doing Great. I would like to know why did you delete https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Suhail_Al_Zarooni Page

He is a famous personality of UAE. I have recently joined his team and I was assigned to look after his social Accounts and pages. Can you tell me why this page was deleted so I can review and provide correction.

I will really appreciate your detailed reply soon.

Mehwish Abdul Sattar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehwish Abdul Sattar (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Mehwish Abdul Sattar (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I deleted it following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suhail_Al_Zarooni, which lasted for three weeks but had very little participation. While several complaints are made here, only one concern listed there is actually a valid reason for deletion, so let me focus on that.

What the editors there, and our policies, are asking for, is for the article to be backed by more sources which provide evidence of the notability of the subject. Additional newspaper articles, magazines, books, that sort of thing. Our general notability guideline is our fundamental test for this requirement, we call it "notability", but it really is just a matter of the number and quality of sources in the article.

If you like, I can make a "draft" version of the old article which you can work on and try and get some more sources into. It would be, at that point, also important to address one other concern in the discussion--that the text was a little non-neutral and promotional in places. Let me know if you'd like to work on a draft version of this, and if you would like that, once I've done that and you've made some changes, I can show you how to get it reviewed to include back into the encyclopedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page Deletion: Cannabinoid hyperemesis acute renal failure

Hey Joe-

I wanted to contact you re: Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Acute Renal Failure (CHARF) page, recently deleted on 06/16/2014. In response to the other complaints about the page in is current form - recent case studies have been recognized for their unique combination of symptoms leading to the acute renal failure. Not all vomiting causes renal failure, nor does all dehydration. In Cannabinoid hyperemesis acute renal failure, it is this specific combination which gives this subset of CHS a unique name. It is also special in how the dehydration is onset (long/hot constant showering) with vomiting.

Maybe instead of its own page, a brief expansion of the last sentence within the "Clinical Presentation" section of Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome page can include a short summary about CHARF? I propose something along the lines of:

"Individual attacks can lead to complications, such as dehydration and acute kidney injury. This may occur sooner than with other vomiting syndromes, as CHS patients have a unique combination of extensive hot showering and vomiting that can lead quickly to severe dehydration."

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Mxdlvn (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

The article was deleted after this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabinoid hyperemesis acute renal failure, and in fact I think that two of the participants in the discussion there suggested some coverage in the page you suggest. You are definitely welcome, and encouraged, to add something there. As far as the precise wording, well, it's Wikipedia, individual bits of content are mostly handled by what we call the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle. More or less: Add it. If someone has a concern about it, they'll either revert the change (in which case you should both discuss on the article talk page), or they won't. And so on. Hope this helps! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to revert your increased protection level of Wikipedia:Article Wizard

Per the standard operating practice, I am requesting that you reduce the protection of the Article Wizard back to Semi-Protection. Per the Protection policy, the use of Template Protection for the Article Wizard is invalid. The page is not a template nor is it transcluded to any other page. Furthermore the page is being vandalized by only one editor, one who has been linked the policies multiple times. The editor has a singular focus of attempting to put forward a non-notable film maker biography for acceptance. I believe the appropriate action should have been to issue a block to the user who was deliberately vandalizing the page after having been warned off it previously by multiple users both through talk page messages and reversion notices. If I do not receive satisfaction I will appeal to RFPP asking that the protection level be reduced based on the low level unintentional vandalism that has occured between 2010 and now is not enough to exceed the loss of community collaboration caused by the restriction to Template Editor. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

First, I've removed the protection, and replaced it with PC1.

I disagree with a couple of your particulars here, most particularly blocking what is probably a good-faith editor on competence grounds without having issued a final warning. And semi isn't going to cut it here, the previous failed-edit to the problems introduced by this fellow was a revert of vandalism which completely blocked access to the Article Wizard for three hours, which probably pushed off 200 new editors in the meantime (based on page-view statistics.) Some reverts to problems on this page have been fast, others not so much, this is a serious problem for a page mostly only looked at by very new editors but which is a "functional" piece of the infrastructure for new editors trying to create new articles.

In any case, PC1 is a much smaller hammer, addresses my concerns, and is almost certainly a better choice. I appreciate you bringing your complaint here, and I hope you find this a happier solution.

I have also issued a final warning to the editor who had most recently been overwriting the page, and I'll try and keep an eye on it. I would appreciate it if you would let me know of any disruption he or she continues to cause that you notice. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll draw your attention to Kash Gauni which was the same article that the user was trying to edit into many places. I have prodded it (only to have it turned down by the editor) and have now explicitly called the question at AfD. Please feel free to weigh in on the debate. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I will weigh in later, have to run to work, but ... just so you are prepared. I have a dollar that says that AfD keeps that, as terrible as it is, and as problematic as the editor is, based on GNG and the Business Standard and Brampton Guardian links. Whether I think that *should* happen is another matter entirely, of course. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Go figure, I may end up owing you a buck yet.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 16:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Culoe de Song page edits.

Hi Joe,

I'm editing the Culoe de Song page. I'm new to all of this so any advice is welcome. I went over the page editing out the peacock terms (did i use that right?). i would appreciate if you could give it a once over and let me know if I've done enough or if i need to edit it further.

secondly you indicated there might be some copyright infringement, if you could point it out to me specifically that would be great.

thanks for all the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banesa the Creative (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, looking back on it, with respect to the copyvio, there's probably not enough to complain about, I had noticed a match from [1] (and note, you'll have to click on "more") on the phrase around "Afrocentric rhythms and subtle, digital textures", but I don't see much more of a match than that, at least now.

More generally, I think you're close with respect to neutrality, I think the article is close. The last two short paragraphs of the biography section could probably be worded in a more boring, encyclopedic style, avoiding "icon", and "growing" in Wikipedia's voice, and, at least for my money, omitting the facebook/twitter follower counts entirely. I think in a lot of ways the biography will do a better job of telling the strengths of this artist without that latter in particular.

As a style thing -- we generally ask people not to put in inline external links in the main text -- the sort of thing you did to reference the twitter follower count. Plain old references are fine. But this is a style thing, and isn't by itself be a barrier to getting the article into the encyclopedia--we here at AfC are trying to push improvements on it to the point where it's unlikely that some *other* editor will nominate it for deletion in the future and possibly succeed. That process can be even more brutal, and we'd rather not push away people who are trying to help us build an encyclopedia like yourself. Best regards, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Hunt Edits Pt.3

Greetings again Joe. I've revised the listing for Lisa Hunt and wanted to run it by you a final time before I re-submit. I hope it meets the guidelines. Please advise. This is pretty much a straight copy and paste from my document files so please excuse any unfinalized layout issues.

---

Lisa Hunt (born Lisa Sabina Behnke on January 13, 1967 in Spokane, Washington) is an American watercolor artist and writer.

Publications

• Shapeshifter Tarot, (1998) Llewellyn Publications

• The Celtic Dragon Tarot, (1999) Llewellyn Publications

• Animals Divine Tarot, (2004) Llewellyn Publications

• The Fantastical Creatures Tarot, (2007) U.S. Games Systems

• The Fairy Tale Tarot, (2009) Llewellyn Publications

• Ghosts & Spirits Tarot, (2012) U.S. Games Systems

Books by Lisa Hunt

• One is a Mouse, (1995) Simon & Schuster

• Celestial Goddesses, (2001) Llewellyn Publications

• Animals Divine Companion (2005) Llewellyn Publications

• Once Upon a Time, (2009) Llewellyn Publications, Ghosts & Spirits Tarot "Little White Book", (2012) U.S Games Systems.

References

"Lisa Hunt" Science Fiction Awards Database (sfadb.com). 1995-2008 http://www.sfadb.com/Lisa_Hunt

http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/ChesleyNomList.html

"Lisa Hunt" The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Vol. 4, pgs. 267 & 518 2005 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1320893.Encyclopedia_of_Tarot

"Lisa Hunt" The Journal of Mythic Arts News and Reviews 2006 http://endicottstudio.typepad.com/endicott_redux/2006/09/the_animals_div.html

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Journal_of_Mythic_Arts

---

Thank you. Any additional help you might be able to lend to get this artical active again would be greatly appreciated.

KortKramer (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good at least at first blush, and I'd submit now--the backlog is somewhat smaller than the last time we talked, and it would be a shame to waste that opportunity. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. If you think any of the previous content could be added back in, that would be great, but from our interactions, I felt going minimal was the most prudent route. I appreciate your continued help and support with this.

KortKramer (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Joe - please refresh my memory. Is there a special process involved with re-submittal? Thank you.

KortKramer (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No special process, just push the button marked "Submit your draft for review!". I'd start with that, and consider adding material sourced to reliable sources *after*, it's actually easier to review and get feedback on a short article with a few sources that are to the point. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So add it from my sandbox? It has been a while. Thanks again Joe. KortKramer (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep! If you prefer, you can move it to something like Draft:Lisa Hunt and then submit it, but our reviewing tools can either work directly on your sandbox, or, more frequently, one of the reviewers will move it for you--and leave a redirect so you won't "lose" it. It's great either way, I'd just submit it from where it is. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"I'd just submit it from where it is." Okay, that is just it. Maybe I am just being thick-headed, but where is it currently that I can just submit it from? Sorry to be a pain. KortKramer (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not being thick--our way of doing things is pretty Byzantine! I'm sorry for not being specific.

At the top of your draft, there is a green box which says "Submit your draft for review!". That box is supposed to be a button, more or less. Click on it, and follow any further instructions. I'd do it myself for you, but that would mark me as the editor creating the article, which would confuse matters if a new reviewer gave any feedback.

This place really is very hard for people new to it to navigate. It's not you, it's us. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

UWA Wrestling

The article was sourced shortly after it was nominated. [2] This Canadian Online Explorer article [3] alone should satisfy WP:N 72.74.199.114 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restarted the AfD, the community should get a say on the article as it stands. You might want to contribute your own views to the discussion. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for New River, Nanjing

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New River, Nanjing. 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. 180.155.69.97 (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. If you have new evidence, I would be happy to look at it. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Accepted"?

Hi, I'm wondering why my updates to the Same-sex Marriage in the U.S. page had to be "accepted"? I've been a registered user for a long time (and have been editing that page for a long time) and my updates are usually automatic. Tinmanic (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

First, thank you for asking.

That particular article is one of a small number of articles (around 1750 last time I checked, out of 4.5 million) which makes use of pending changes protection. Pending changes is a mechanism used for pages that have a very high level of vandalism, but for which even new editors often make constructive edits. More or less, right now, every editor on that page short of those having "reviewer" or "sysop" rights has their changes held back until someone can verify that those edits are not severely problematic (copyright, BLP, or vandalism). More or less, this applies as a result to most editors, it's nothing to do with you in particular.

You've worked on that article a great deal, and PC1 has been on that article for a year, so I'm a bit surprised you just noticed the effect! I've (just now) looked at your edits in particular, and I don't see any problems, your edits appear, so far as I have seen so far, to be objective and neutral.

if you would like, take a look at Wikipedia:Reviewer#Becoming_a_reviewer, read the relevant policies, and let me ask you a pop quiz question or two, and we can talk about whether or not I can grant you reviewer permission under our policies, which would both allow you to be exempt from this and to review other other edits and pending-changes-locked articles. The pop quiz would be to insure that you understand what are and are not valid reasons for rejection--good faith edits should almost always be accepted, even if they are wrong. Instead, accept them, and if you must, then revert them. Read more at the pending changes page, and get back to me. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore EPL Fan Club League

When you closed this afd seem to have missed the fact that 2013–14 Singapore EPL Fan Club League was also under consideration. Could you please delete this article as well? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for calling that to my attention! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:All-time AFC Champions League table

Why delete the Template? You can delete the article, but the template is useful in other articles. -Lisan1233 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It was my reading of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All-time_AFC_Champions_League_table, in which one participant specifically argues for the removal, and others make arguments based on interpretations of WP:NOTSTATS, which would seem to establish a consensus that the information is excessive per se in any context, supporting Jenks24's argument. WP:NOT is a policy, and is given very strong weight as a result.

I am happy to discuss this further, of course. What article are you hoping to include the table in? --j⚛e decker^talk 03:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

the template is born from Asian Club Championship and AFC Champions League records and statistics several years ago, the main article is too big as matches going on to edit , so I make contents in the template. the template is part of the main article. please do not delete it.thank you. -Lisan1233 (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reconsidered the matter, and I don't think there was enough in the way of discussion for me to have deleted the template. I do think you may find that the template may be subject to further deletion discussions per WP:NOTSTATS, but the I think I slightly overstepped by reading the AfD as showing a consensus for including it. Best of luck. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

NWC baseball history decline

Joe,

Many thanks for the important feedback re: copyrights and quoting. Should be an easy revision; recreate using original text with proper citations (when I get time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salem zeus (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No rush, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Waksman article deletion pt 2

Hi Joe,

There is now a copyleft notice on the source pages for the proposed Waksman article. Please see the following links http://www.ismb.lon.ac.uk/gabriel-waksman/research%20-%20t4s.htm http://www.ismb.lon.ac.uk/gabriel-waksman/research%20-%20pilus%20biogenesis.htm Do you think this will resolve the issue?

Many thanks, Line-editing (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would think so, those seem like precisely the Wikipedia licenses. I don't recall if there were other issues, but I'd resubmit and leave a note for the next reviewer saying just this. Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matan Ariel Lazmi

When you closed this afd, you seem to have missed the fact that Or Elkabetz was under consideration as well. Could you please also delete this article? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the second time I've done that in the last couple days, I think my routine for how I proceed through AfDs has changed somehow, and I need to correct that post haste. In any case, I'm on it, and thank you. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Caribbean (board game)

I appreciate that the overwhelming majority felt WP:GNG was sufficient to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean (board game), and they felt that the number of reviews and the length of some of them were enough to meet WP:GNG. But nobody really addressed WP:NOT. So given the tally, I agree that your closing was proper. But since the policy argument that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that there was no context provided or reason given why the article was not just a indiscriminate piece of info, was not addressed, where is appropriate to bring up this basis for deletion? I see that Deletion review is not appropriate since procedurally nothing was wrong. Do I just post it at afd again and make only the single argument? Or is there a better route, or am I just beating my head against the wall? --Bejnar (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

While it might have been nice to see more discussion of that point), the boundaries between our most desirable content and the most obvious cases of WP:NOT are inevitably fuzzy, and to some extent how strongly or weakly we enforce those are a matter, in part, of precedent rather than literal interpretation. With respect to what is more or less a WP:NOTPLOT #1 argument, I think on the face of it a very fair argument, however, the community has consistently come to the conclusion that many articles that look a lot like this structurally, books and film articles that are mostly plot, voice actor biographies that are mostly filmography listings, and so on, are notable if BASIC is met. Part of it is the belief that the work can become more than just a plot or rules summary, I'm sure.

As to what can you do now? Given that I found a consensus, I would not recommend immediate renomination, it's generally considered good form to wait six months--not doing so generally results in reactive "close this" statements, editors do not enjoy revisiting AfD arguments without new evidence. But I doubt at this point this would close differently if you had another AfD--the difference between policy and precedent in cases like this, in my experience, is just that different.

I do appreciate the question, I love AfD geeking, and it's rare that there's a need to dig through the entire chain of thought that I put into a close. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 03:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Article for China Sonangol Declined

Hi Joe,

I'm writing in regarding my article title : China Sonangol was declined due to copyright issues. Apparently there was a match with this website : http://www.chinasonangol.net/china-sonangol-international-helping-hand-charity-non-profit-organizations/ which also happens to be my website.

Would this matter if this was also my website or must I re-word my article entirely?

Thanks.

Regards, Sophia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia Liew (talk • contribs) 08:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sophia,

It could resolve the copyright issue, but it probably wouldn't solve other issues with the wording.... let me explain.

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 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 of what is said about the topic from independent sources.

If it were only the copyright concern, there is a process by which you can talk to our volunteer response team, show you have the power to license the appropriate content under the appropriate licenses, and so forth, and that is all explained at WP:Donating copyrighted materials.

However, in this case, I fear that it might be a waste of your time, if the text needs to be reworded anyway.

Finally, if you have an association with the subject of any form, it is important that you read and understand WP:PSCOI.

Best of luck! Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 16:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The International Portfolio of Artists Photography

Hi, Joe! I'm here because you closed this discussion and deleted the page. Could I ask you to look at the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 13 about the history of a userspace copy of that page? I've no idea if those concerns are well founded or not, no idea what action if any is needed. Do you? Does it need a histmerge? Or a delete of that page and userfication of the deleted article? Or neither, or perhaps no action? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect there's not a serious attribution history problem here, but I'm not 100% sure. Looking through it, the only substantial other contributions (and this took me a while to be sure of, there are a couple diffs that our diffs parser chokes on) are from an IP whose edits are interlaced with the creating author in such a way as to make me think it is the same editor.... but it'd be hard to prove it. More than happy to have this histmerged out of an abundance of caution. Alternatively, if you'd like to look yourself, I'm more than happy to restore and trust your judgment. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate closures

Hi J.D. - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus (film) (2nd nomination). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 08:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Just noticed you took a fresh look at the Nuveen page and it makes the page a lot better. Thank you for taking a trip to memory lane and tackling that. I really appreciate it! Sorry for the delay...Portocac13 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you are most welcome! I spent a day digging through old NPOV disputes, I should do that again, that was a lot of fun. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Finally finished the work on Cantata++

Hello Mr. Decker, Finally I got it! It took a lot of time to work on the article and I didn't finish it as soon as I wanted to. But now here it is: Draft: Cantata++. Will you please have a look on it and give me a short feedback? I invested a lot of free time... So I really hope it's going to be fine ;-). Best regards! QARon (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a longer look later today, I see two things that you might want to glance at while you're waiting. The first is that there are a lot of incorrect internal links in the article--well, links that point to disambiguation pages rather than the final topic. plug-in, CSV, users, developers, RTCA, verification, SUT, IDE, linked. metrics, encapsulation, portable, are just some examples. I'd skip linking words whose common meaning is going to be apparent (users and developers, most obviously) and fix the rest. For example, for RTCA, you can say [[Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics|RTCA]] to clarify which RTCA is involved. Obvious enough. I also wonder if the entirely unsourced mode of operation section is overweight given a lack of footnotes, but again, I"m glancing quickly, and I'll want to read this in more detail soon. I have marked this as a draft for review, so there is a small chance another reviewer will weigh in before I do, I don't think you should have to wait if another reviewer comes along--you've been very patient with our processes and stuff. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're actually right. I removed the apparent linked disambiguation pages you listed and also some more. Furthermore I linked the exact term for the abbreviations. But I don't know what to do with the lack of footnotes in the "mode of operation" part...Hmm, still complicated. I'm thinking about it again, but in my opinion it doesn't make sense to link any reference which does not exactly treat the mode of operation. I don't want to add a source only that I have added one, you understand? Greets, QARon (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the footnotes there so long as the material is more or less supported by the sources you have.

By the way, the trick I use for finding links-to-redirects is pretty neat, you can actually change the color of the links via CSS. My vector.js file has the following command in it:

importStylesheet('User:Joe Decker/linkclassifier.css');

And that makes links to redirect glow with a yellow background, really great for doing a lot of writing. :)

Anyway, I'll check out the article here in a sec, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I nominated it for PROD because it still doesn't have sources that confer notability. What were you thinking Joe Decker? Did you check the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantata++ that you closed on May 7, 2014? You saw that they didn't add references to support notability. Why didn't you send them back to the drawing board and explain WP:N to them again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you feel the sources are identical to what they were when the previous discussion happened (I don't), apply G4. If not, please re-AfD. We have an author here who has done what they can with limited sources and who has made improvements, and I feel that this deserves a discussion rather than a fiat decision. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's get a few things clear.

1. 2014-07-02T01:41:45‎ me PRODing this article that should never have been moved, but you refuse to admit that.
2. 2014-07-02T01:49:03‎ you informing me to take it to AfD or even CSD, but I know that's fools game because you would have immediately removed CSD. Why? It's already in PROD and should have never been moved.
3. 2014-07-02T01:49:48‎ I reverted the addition to my talk page because it makes no sense and informed you that I took it to PROD. Seems reasonable.
4. 2014-07-02T01:53:48 you removing the PROD. Why? Apparently because I've seen your note and ignored it. I didn't ignore it. As you can see, I explained it.

So what we have here is not my inability to understand. You don't understand that we don't move articles from draft until there are sufficient reliable sources to support the subject's notability. You don't understand that articles that have been deleted via AfD have an even higher threshold for recreation. You don't understand that PROD is part of the deletion process and is no less valid than AfD. You've got to be kidding me. Stop wasting the time of editors for two SPAs who simply want to promote their product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fear that the article is unlikely to survive the discussion. I have tried to find sources for it and can't, and have had to conclude that it either needs to be deleted or stripped right back to a stub, where it might survive. I've stripped out one large unreferenced section. A discussion at WP:AFD is not a bad thing, and not all articles that are accepted at AFC will survive. The suggestion for QARon is to work diligenbtly and fast to find all the sources possible, but not all for the same point, and to add them to the article. Once that is done to notify the deletion discussion that the article has now changed radically with respect to sourcing and reviewers need to look again.

We require references from significant coverage about Cantata++, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42

Perhaps the article should be rewritten to be about the owner/developer of the software? Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Timetrent, I think that's right, in previous discussions over the previous months [4] I think I've done what I can to find and extract what can be extracted out of reliable sources, I don't think I have access to anything more than would help. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Albert (Isaac) Ackerman

Dear Joe Decker, I am respectfully requesting that you take another look at Albert (Isaac) Ackerman (his last name is actually spelled Akerman-without a "c"). He is a local politician but has just accomplished something of national interest. In his town of Lakewood, NJ, there was a homeless camp (a tent city) that grew to well over 100 residents. It was in existence for close to ten years. He shut it down by placing all the people living there in housing-something that has never been done before-and the story has been followed nationally (there was some international interest as well) by media outlets. It was very controversial and could eventually lead to courts, under certain circumstances, ordering municipalities to place their homeless. Some view his actions as compassionate while others are upset that he may have set a precedent that will give the homeless more rights. I don't know if this qualifies as a significant accomplishment, but having met him I felt I should at the very least bring this to your attention. There are many articles about him dealing with the issue. Here is the most recent one that I found: http://pix11.com/2014/07/01/photos-officials-dismantle-nj-tent-city/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emaniac1 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That wouldn't have addressed the views of those participating in the AfD, the question is more about having received substantial coverage in reliable sources more than whether the things he did were or weren't important (although the two are of course somewhat related) and "substantial" is interpreted under our policies usually to mean that you'd need news pieces that were more than routine (generally a couple quotes about an issue would be considered routine in our policies) and that spent more coverage talking about the subject himself. We do a pretty terrible job at explaining our policies around here, and for that I apologize. (Let me also point you, while you're here, at the WP:Teahouse, which is a help portal here at Wikipedia for new editors trying to get oriented in our bureaucratic maze, they have some great people helping out there.) --j⚛e decker^talk 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

the futon shop submission

This submission appears to be taken from http://blog.thefutonshop.com/2011/09/history-of-futon-shop.html. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Unless stated otherwise, assume that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Copyrighted content can be cited as a reliable source if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines; however, your submission must be written in your own words, and in continuous prose.

We run http://blog.thefutonshop.com/2011/09/history-of-futon-shop.html. I wrote that so how is it copyright infringement? If you mean duplicate content than that is another issue.

How do I fix this problem? Can I use this text being that I wrote it? Or can I reference it in a more accurate way?

Do you need me to rewrite it all because of duplicate content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefutonshop (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. If you are the copyright holder of the material, you can read more about the issues and how to address them at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials, which will tell you how to establish that you are the copyright holder for the material, and the implications of licensing your text here (which are more signficant than you might be aware of.), so check out the page, and it will point you at who to contact to dot the i's and cross the t's. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 23:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What's your suggestion?

Dear Joe Decker, I really, really appreciate your enormous support !!! Thank you. But: What the heck just happened during the last 12h with the article Cantata++ ? Starting my computer this morning nearly let me get unconscious...WOW! It took a lot of time to read all the sections about the deletion and the discussion about the article. Honestly, I really feel overstrained. And I'm not sure how to go on with the article. I spent a lot of time(even in my holidays) working on the new version of it and now the article is proposed for deletion again. On the one hand I can understand that "the mode of operation" does not meet the notability guidance but on the other hand I think a CSD or PROD is not fair. I should get another chance to work on it again. What do you think? Do you have any suggestion about how to go on with this project? I appreciate any of your ideas relating to save it. Best regards, QARon (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry this is such a ruckus.

Ignoring the chest-thumping, more or less what is going on is this. As I mentioned when we talked in May, the primary bar to having an article is our notability guideline, I believe I pointed you at my little essay and checklist on sourcing. You and I looked around, found some new sources, discussed them, etc. In the end, whether the sources we have meet the notability guideline is a matter determined by the community. The AfD is that discussion, and it was initiated by another member of the community almost immediately after approving the article. There are some back-and-forth details I'm glossing over, but that's where things stand now.

You are certainly welcome to look again at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable and to try and find sources of that sort, but I suspect you and I and TimTrent above have already dug up what is likely to be discvoered, so I'm not at this point optimistic at all that new material that meets those restrictions will be found.

Should that discussion close delete, that really puts the nail in the coffin for having an article on the subject of the language, there is no "next step." Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is what it is. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I should add this, just by way of context: As for the other discussion methods, from my experience, the CSD would have been inappropriate, while I have argued that G4 should *not* be treated as narrowly as it is, precedent around G4 treats "the same article" so narrowly that the inclusion of a single new source here was enough to preclude a valid G4, and any competent administrator would have declined the tag if it had been placed. PROD is for entirely uncontroversial deletions, and could have been contested by any editor, even yourself. There was never a way this was going to end anywhere but AfD, it's there now, and that is where the final act of this will play out. While that may not be ending well, I would not concern yourself with the other deletion methods here. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your enormous patience for "mentoring" me. You did a good job and really helped me a lot. I'm going to look for sources onces more, maybe I'm going to find something... We'll see! QARon (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You are quite welcome! Best of luck. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, I had a looong night yesterday. I was searching and searching and searching for references. I found some NEUTRAL ones and added them to the article. Some of them are quit good reports like a technical brief or a master thesis for example. I also recreated the "mode of operation"-part because it is referenced now (unfortunately just 1 footnote - but almost more than nothing ;-) ). And I also think that the mode of operation part is an important part of the article.

By the way: During my research about Cantata I also found an interesting article on Wikipedia List of unit testing frameworks where I red a lot about other software systems for comparing their articles with mine. BUT what I still don't understand is: Why do articles of software tools like Parasoft C/C++test "survive" in the Wiki, whereas my article (which is definitely longer and more detailed, and also has a lot of more additional value for user) is proposed for deletion by Walter Görlitz? I'm just beginning to ask myself whether it is his PERSONAL interest to delete the article or not ? I don't want to impute him to do so, no, definitely not; but I was just wondering about if Wiki always is that objective that it seems to be ?! Maybe you can ask yourself ;-). And, nevertheless I would appreciate you, having a look on my article (I tried to follow your notability guidance, but I'm not sure if I did right). Thx. QARon (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Living

Looks like you double-closed this. Edit conflict, maybe? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Yeah, I probably pulled up two or three to evaluate, I didn't get a warning about the EC from the closing scripts, but still stupid of me not to have noticed. Thanks for the note! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

New stuff

Hi, Joe,D. I'm here about one of the AfDs you handled. I think it's a fairly straightforward one, closed a little early, easy to work out how the user's points were evaluated mostly.

I was thinking it may be one I'd take to del review--possibly maybe. The thing being, several sources I've found didn't come up in the AfD. Those that've come to light are established print mags generally, made up of about 4 languages (jp, fr, de, zh etc). Some are interviews (I know how you feel about them :), a few are articles with some critical analysis amongst them. There's also coverage in a book (coffee-table type granted, but'd be a few paragraphs on the person & seems to be independent/legit at least). While a couple are offline (i.e print) there're scans and such online for the overwhelming majority. Anyway, naturally I wanted to bring it up with you first. Thoughts? Also re the debate btw, would you mind describing how you weighed up Bearcat's input please? Thanks for reading. –91.125.182.5 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as for interviews, it's not so much how I feel about 'em, as how the community treats them with respect to our policies. With one or two exceptions, I am to be pretty middle of the road as AfD closers go. As far as questions regarding autobiographies go--well, there isn't a rule against them, but they are strongly discouraged, and WP:PSCOI is essential reading. AUTOBIO doesn't really have anything to do with notability, but repeated recreations are a reason to apply creation protection (WP:SALT) in some circumstances, that is likely what led Bearcat to their mention of the recreations.

In terms of guidance about the new sources, I find that many new editors have trouble turning the legalese of our policies into an understanding of what the community means by those policies. I've attempted to put that into a more top-down form, while this is still a draft, you may find User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable helpful.

You mention sources in different languages, that is completely allowed under our policies, but it may be harder to assess the reliability and depth of non-English publications. See WP:NONENG. Anyway, absolutely no concerns about you taking this to DRV. I wish you the best of luck, and hope you have a pleasant week. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 04:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

17:21:45, 7 July 2014 review of submission by MdvFdn

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

Hi there, the article I submitted for review on the Medavie Health Foundation was rejected due to copyright. I am one of the main content coordinators for Medavie Health Foundation. How do we overcome these issues and get our article published?

Thanks,

Daniel Community Relations Coordinator Medavie Health Foundation

MdvFdn (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, Instructions for licensing the material appropriately are at WP:Donating copyrighted materials, but I'd recommend you pursue rewriting the text in a neutral, encyclopedic tone in any case. Also be sure to read WP:PSCOI, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: In terms of addressing the neutrality concerns, I usually suggest writing articles based on what arm's length, reliable sources completely independent of the subject say, and using those as basic measures of wording and weight. These would be newspaper articles, magazines, books, but with a care to avoid warmed-over press releases and such. Working to write from such sources is a very useful technique for improving the neutrality of one's coverage. Be sure to summarize, rather than copy or paraphrase, what arm's length coverage you find as a whole. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Deletion on Joel S. Schuman, MD, FACS

Joe:

You recently reviewed and deleted an article that my colleague and I have been working on. You indicated that copyright infringement was the reason you deleted the article, however the website (Fox Center for Vision Restoration) that you stated was infringed upon, also happens to be owned by the department that I work for, was written by a colleague and therefore not a copyright violation. I work for the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Joel Schuman is the chairman of the department and Director of the Fox Center for Vision Restoration. Neither I nor my colleague working on this wiki article have ever done a wiki article before and do not know the ins and out of the process and have struggled to provide the information necessary to get this article published. Any assistance you can provide would be helpful, starting with what needs done to show there is no copyright infringement. Thank you very much for your help.

Lori Ann Young UPMC Eye Center Department of Ophthalmology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Wallyl22 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyl22 (talk • contribs)

Hi Lori, Instructions for licensing the material appropriately are at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Also be sure to read WP:PSCOI to learn about our rules surrounding writing topics you have an involvement with. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/References in On the Road

Hello Can I get a copy of the deleted page, I am going to upgrade the main article with it. Thank you--Blanchisserie 19:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchisserie (talk • contribs)

Sure, enable email forwarding in your options, and I'll have it heading your way in a jiffy. It's in preferences > general, (As long as you don't reply to the email I send, I won't get any information about your email address, it'll be forwarded through Wikipedia, if that helps.) --j⚛e decker^talk 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I made the change, hope it's working. Thank you again. --Blanchisserie 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchisserie (talk • contribs)

 Done If some non-trivial sections of that get included "as is", you a note about attribution to the deleted article is probably wise. I'm sure a history merge would be a mess, not sure what the other options are, but at least make a note on the talk page on in the edit summary that they came in part from the other article, if you would. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

23:22:28, 10 July 2014 review of submission by Ghable1234

• Ghable1234 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Moveha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Joe,

My article was rejected due to lack of notoriety and poor sources. I believe this subject is notable and deserves a place in Wikipedia. I must admit that the reason I know about this company is that I was a intern there for a few weeks. However this is a innovating company that even made it into a notable new source.(Google 36kr and Moveha to see it.) As for the sources I am still new to Wiki and am not great with with creating reliable sources, also some information had no source as I asked the CEO directly for some information.

Please help me make this article worthy of Wikipedia

Thank You

Ghable1234 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, :Ghable1234,

Moveha may or may not meet our notability guideline, but what the article will need to do to show that Moveha is notable is to include two or more reliable, arm's length sources, which are not press releases or interviews, which talk about Moveha in some detail.

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! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal re June BED

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, I'll be right over! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think of anyone else whose opinion should be asked please use whatever form of words you wish to invite them to take a look. I chose for arbitrary reasons to restrict my notifications to those who had posted at all on that talk page for any reason. It was as good a list as any, probably. And your own choice will also be as good a list as any, probably. Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I did not realize that the template caused my talk page to be in a maintenance catagory. 174.99.59.109 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand completely! Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Kleargear

Joe, I've taken a very fast initial stab at converting the Kleargear article from an article about the company to one about the case; [5]. since you were another editor suggesting that, you may want to make further edits along that line. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks! I added some stuff, I can be a bit ham-handed with writing law, so any corrections/improvements, of course, are welcome. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Great; I see some others have already pitched in, too. Thanks a lot. TJRC (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE

Hello Joe,

I was wondering if you could help me understand why a DISPLAYTITLE would read the USER name before the actual Wikipedia page's name? Here is an example:User:Todayilearned/Noel Ashman. Biancamariecar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't dug into that template before, but if I recall correctly, it's pretty serious about wanting to make sure that the displayed title reflects the current page location, I believe it attempts to prevent/ignore title changes that would be confusing. There is a technique that might work, but perhaps the more important point is that the title will display correctly if/when it's moved into mainspace. Sorry it's not something I'm more knowledgable about. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

UsedEverywhere.com's wikipage

Hello Joe!

Originally I accidentally published the page without adding my citations... I thought I was in the sandbox :(

Immediately the page was considered for deletion and I raced to add all the independent sources I could find, but looks like it wasn't enough!

Where can I access the page to see If I can cite more sources?

Almagordo (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the article was deleted after the result of a community discussion, I can't simply restore it without knowing what sources you have (although I can mail you a copy if you like).

I know that it can be difficult for a new editor to make sense of our complex rules and precedents about what is and isn't an acceptable source for showing notability under our guidelines. 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. You may also want to ask questions at WP:Teahouse. Finally, if you are associated with the site, pleasae make sure you read WP:PSCOI. Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

BioScience Research Collaborative

Hello again, I have updated the BRC page, adding more external links as you recommended. I thought it would be resubmitted when I saved the page, so I'm hoping that you can take a look and let me know if the page is good to go now. Thanks! ScienceMaggie (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)ScienceMaggie (and here's the page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BioScience_Research_Collaborative#BioScience_Research_Collaborative)

Thanks, I'll take a look myself if I can get a spare moment, but I hope too that another reviewer will be along soon. Thanks for your help! --j⚛e decker^talk 20:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sean Alexander's article

The Sean Alexander article was deleted. The arguments for deletion imply that sufficient research was not completed to identify whether he is a notable producer. Few editors discussed the merits of deleting the case. The history notes that the article can be recreated with reliable sources.

Substantial research has been conducted to establish notability. There are several websites discussing his work in producing and writing songs, as well as print credits to his name. There is also mention of his work on tv shows. These sources include both primary and secondary sources.

Please let me know if I can be of help in providing sources to recreate the Sean Alexander article.

Pattyt18 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be delighted to take a look at whether sources are available that would demonstrate notability under our policies. 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 our policies require in terms of demonstrating notability, the term has, in the meaning of our policies, a very specific meaning which is not always apparent to new editors. I hope that my essay will be helpful. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete AFD closure

Hello, Joe! Your closure of the Dragon and Herdsman AFD appears to have forgotten to delete Dragon and Judge, which was nominated in the same AFD debate. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks, whoops!  Done --j⚛e decker^talk 15:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stormstudios, notability

Hi Joe, Firstly I wonder what defines notability. I resubmitted with extensive references which I'd not realised the importance of initially... Secondly, there appears to be a relevant page for StormStudios already (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stormstudios), but when you edit, it goes to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Storm_Thorgerson. This is really the page I want to edit - the : page. Thirdly, StormStudios is spelt as one word with two capital S's, so to be correct, the page should be under 'StormStudios' rather than 'Stormstudios'. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoboss (talk • contribs) 11:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In terms of "how am I supposed to make sense of all our notability guidelines?" -- Our guidelines do a bad job at providing an introduction to this, but WP:GNG is the basic policy, and WP:42 is a more or less common way to try and explain that in a shorter form. I'm working on an essay trying to explain it at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable, which may also help explain some of the usual issues that come up. For the most part, notability is about seeing arm's-length, reliable sources which talk about the subject in detail, and those are almost always, but not absolutely always, going to be newspapers, magazines, books, or academic journals.

If you go to StormStudios, it will say, just below the title, " (Redirected from Stormstudios)". If you click on the Stormstudios in that line, you'll be able to edit the redirect page, and if you check the URL at that point, you'll be able to see how you get to a page with redirection turned off in general. But I've cleaned up the redirects, there's now one at both spellings. I don't think the wrong spelling is necessary, but it isn't hurting anything, so ...

Thanks for the note! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne Victory FC supporters

Hi Joe. Thanks for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Victory FC supporters. Just wondering if you think it would be OK to recreate it solely as a redirect to Melbourne Victory FC#Support, as myself and a few others mentioned at the AfD. Redirects are cheap, plausible search term, etc. I'm happy to fully protect it as soon as I create it too, so it can't be turned back into an article without some form of discussion. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are fine, and in fact I just made it. Sorry my close wasn't clear! Thanks for the poke! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Won Chik Park

The Won Chik Park article was deleted; however, as the original creator of the article, I did not receive any prior notification nor was I included in the process. The arguments for deletion imply that the the only meaningful criteria for notability was Master Park's belt rating (rank), and that this is substantiated only with an interview with a former student. These completely ignore the primary source, which is Park's own autobiography; this is an entire book, not just a simple interview. His list of accomplishments should make him notable, including his being the primary founder of the Texas Taekwondo Organization (a state-wide organization, now part of USA Taekwondo); organizer of the Junior Olympic Taekwondo Championship; and chairman of the United States National Taekwondo Championship tournament, which led directly to taekwondo becoming an olympic summer event. (I won't bother pointing out any of the hundreds of minor athletes who have WP pages.) I understand that notability rests mainly on primary and secondary sources; to that end, I used Park's published autobiography as the primary source of biographical information. His other achievements are not fictional, but I do admit that finding web references to them is difficult; many sources published prior to 2000 are simply not in web form yet. I'd like more consideration of this as a valid article, please. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's unfortunate that you were notified, doing so is not required by policy, but is generally considered good practice, and I'll leave a note with the proposer. Glancing at the proposer's history, it doesn't appear to be an exception.

The primary reason to delete, or not delete, any article is the general notability guideline, and that was referred to directly or indirectly by two of the three participants in the discussion. That was the primary reason I found consensus here, rather than MANOTE. Most "special notability guidelines" exist largely to provide guidance on when we can have good confidence that sources meeting GNG exist even when we haven't found them--WP:MANOTE is an essay, and has not yet earned the consensus to be a Wikipedia guideline or policy. I'd be happy to reconsider once you've done the relevant research to find print sources, in the meantime, if a copy of the article would help your research, I'd be happy to email you a copy. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd appreciate having the latest (pre-deletion) version of the article. As for printed sources, like I said, I'm using Park's printed autobiography as the principle source. I listed it under "Published works" in the article; I suppose it more properly belongs under "References"? — Loadmaster (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll send a copy along, no problem.

About the autobiography: That can't be used to show notability under GNG-- The general notability guideline requires (in part) independent sources, and autobiographies are by definition not independent, we require sources which are written by completely unaffiliated parties--not the subject, not their employer or employee, agent, family member, close friend, and so on. This is spelled out at Wikipedia:Gng#General_notability_guideline. I realize there's a lot to take in there in that guideline, and I apologize that it's so complicated, but it's all there for a reason.

It can be used to source uncontroversial details, however, say, a birthplace, it just doesn't help with the notability question. Thanks for understanding. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

22:10:30, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Orthoacro

• Orthoacro (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:List of alphanumeric acronyms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added some more information on the page, then discovered page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Numeronym. I suggest this page become a branch from the "Examples" section there, as it is growing rather large on that page anyway. The "Examples" content on that page would be migrated here and linked from there.

Orthoacro (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You're definitely welcome to expand Numeronym, not sure what you mean by a branch. Our usual guidelines on article size wouldn't suggest a split at anything like the current size of Numeronym. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

23:17:48, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Vernonlee 2000

• Vernonlee 2000 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Vernonlee 2000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vernonlee 2000 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I just submitted an article and was rejected. I can't find your notes as to why -- sorry to come to your page here, but I looked and looked and couldn't find them!

--Found it! Never mind. :)

No worries! Let me know if I can explain more, leaving a note here is completely fine. Or, if you'd prefer, we have a great Q&A resource for new editors at WP:Teahouse. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Declining submission: submission is a copyright violation

Hello Joe... I removed the text that may have brought up your copyright concerns. https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Robert_Richardson_%28author%29&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaogs (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great. I'm going to have to wait for another reviewer to take the next pass, thanks for your patience. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

William Tomicki--possible deletion

Dear Joe Decker:

Thank you for your interest in my Wikipedia page.

My wish to delete my page was simply frustration talking and not at all what I wish. I would just like an accurate article about me posted without the controversy or criticism.

And I would be happy to provide whatever additional facts, backup or information you may need to clarify any issue. I, too, seek an honest and properly researched page full of transparency and scrupulously honest.

Thank you.

Sincerely, William Tomicki

wtomicki@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.125.71 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi William,

Other than doing a "relist", I'm not sure if I've been involved in the article or the deletion discussion so far, but if I've made other comments, let me know, I deal with so many articles that I don't always remember each individually, I'm going to assume in what I say below that that's been my only comment so far, but if I've missed something, feel free to apply a "clue-by-four."

I certainly understand how frustrating it can be to deal with having a biography of oneself have inaccuracies For the most part, biographies on Wikipedia, particularly of living people such as yourself, should be based on what is said about the subject (e.g., yourself) in reliable, secondary sources.

If there is something in the article which is not backed by something in a reliable, arm's length source, I'd recommend removing it from the article. Go ahead and indicate in the edit summary that you are the person. In many cases, this should be (it often isn't, but it should be) enough to address that sort of problem. The inclusion of material that *is* well-sourced is more tricky, but if there is specifically false and unverifiable information in the article, removing it is fine.

However, you may wish to get more help with this, and help that is familiar with our bureaucracy. Let me suggest three possibilities, and you may wish to consider one or more of them. Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects is contact information for our "OTRS" volunteer response team, a group I've worked with in the past and look forward to working on again--it's a volunteer group of knowledgable editors who work with concerns raised by email, often from people who are the subjects of wikipedia articles themselves. These people will don't have special "power" within Wikipedia, save that they are familiar with the way things work here and all the processes (which is a huge deal), and who have been very mildly vetted as being capable of dealing with some issues with an element of privacy. A second resource is WP:BLPN, which is a noticeboard that is probably best used for simple, negative and inaccurate statements in a biography. A third resource is WP:TEAHOUSE, which is more a Q&A resource devoted toward helping people get up to speed on our enormous and maze-like processes and policies.

If you have a biography and it's got some signficant misstatements, and you're in a deletion discussion (which appears to be the case), the first of those three might be a good place to start, there are several interlocking things going on, and they'll be able to give you the most hands-on attention.

I hope that you find this helpful! Best regards, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Need your help with Acts 29 Network unknown user deleting posts.

• I keep having a ligitimate ref deleted by unknown user 110.149.195.208, any thoughts? TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  The usual procedure is Bold, Revert, Delete, after one of you made the first change related to this, and the other undid it, you should have both headed to the talk page to discuss the matter. Your next step would be that. For what it's worth, the complaint appears not to be about the source per se, but about whether the article actually verifies what the reference is being used to attribute. Perhaps I misunderstand, however. I can easily imagine that discussing on the talk page won't resolve the question, but give it a shot, if after a handful of days the two of you (and any other editors who happen to join in) can't resolve your differences, you could ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. And be careful to avoid canvassing for votes in any way that might be perceived as non-neutral, WP:CANVAS can provide some background on that issue, which often trips up well-meaning editors. Hope this helps! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

13:29:08, 20 July 2014 review of submission by DanbyCrest

• DanbyCrest (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Classic Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe,

I hope you'll excuse the following rant! It's not aimed at you as I fully understand your reasons for rejecting our submission. But I'd like to ask your help in finding what we need to do to move things forward. I've edited the page to try to meet your requirements, but I thought some background might help.

Wikipedia currently has "Classic Air Force" pointing to Newquay Cornwall Airport. While CAF is, indeed, on the Airport's Aerohub, it has no relationship or affiliation with the Airport itself. The existing page is thus somewhat misleading.

CAF is the charitably based incarnation of Air Atlantique Classic Flight, previously located at Coventry, where a maintenance base and small museum are still in existence. Air Atlantique Classic Flight has a page on Wikipedia, even though it holds fewer citations than currently exist on the proposed new page.

I'd very much like to get CAF up on Wikipedia because it has one of the most historically important collections of post-war classic aircraft in the world. It includes the world's oldest flyable British jet, the world's only remaining flyable Twin Pioneer, and the world altitude record breaking Canberra - also maintained in flying condition. Once we have the page I can link to it from a great many other Wiki pages to show where surviving - and publicly accessible - examples of many rare aircraft can be found.

This isn't a cheap attempt to promote a commercial business - I know that's not what Wikipedia's for - but to give people access to a valuable historic and educational resource. If that also helps the charity to rescue and preserve more rare aircraft then it's a win-win for everyone.

Rant over, and thank you for your patience!

Jem

DanbyCrest (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jem, well, let's see what the next reviewer things of the sourcing improvements. I realize our guidelines about what we require for something like that seem maze-like and bureaucratic, I've been working on a way of explaining our requirements there at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable, it's not finished yet but it might lend a different angle on what we're looking for.

Certainly if you get an article approved on CAF--that would be great. I'm sorry that process is so slow, we're horribly backlogged, with (last I checked 1300 or 1400 articles pending review.)

But if we can't have a CAF article, there's no reason I can see why we couldn't have material on CAF at the AACF page, and retarget the redirect there, it sounds more applicable. I would definitely consider that as an alternative if it appears that the article isn't going to be approved. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Closure request

Hi, I was kindly referred to you by another editor regarding my request for closure on an afd case. I've asked a couple of editors to close it, but I think they may feel uncomfortable about it, and are reluctant to get involved since they are not administrators (which really doesn't matter to me). At any rate, I wonder if you might take a look at the Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation and come to a decision regarding an outcome for the article. The article is one that I originated, though there was a conflict created by another editor (now indefinitely blocked) who was attacking me and my work on Wikipedia, and in which the editor who requested the afd for this article became involved, expressing support for the blocked editor. I believe that, as a result of that situation, he scrutinized the articles that I originated, and started the afd request on this one. My view is that, due to the situation in which he was involved with the other editor, he was not unbiased in his perception of this article. Therefore, I have sought closure on this afd from an experienced editor, and have been referred to you as one whom another believes is fair. I have made improvements to the article, and have added more references, including additional reliable references that establish further notability to the subject. I remain open-minded to the outcome and am taking this as another learning experience. Thank you, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've closed it, although I think an argument could have been made for leaving it open/relisting, after spending a good hour starting at it, the sources, and the arguments, I don't believe that further discussion would have been likely to have changed the outcome. In general, AfDs often (particularly these days) run more than 7 days and are frequently relisted for one or two more 7-day runs, so unless something deeply urgent is involved (e.g., the article contains negative unsourced information about a living person, copyright violations, or other severely problematic material) I'd generally allow these things to find their own time to close. Not a big deal, just FYI. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you, I appreciate it. Now the question is, how do I merge it? Does the system automatically merge articles in these situations, or do editors have to cut and paste to the other article? I wonder if you could direct me to the guidelines or expectations regarding this. Thanks again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone has to actually go and do the work, yeah. I'd recommend trying to summarize the copied material to a level that does not overwhelm the rest of the target article. One the material is merged in, the foundation article can be turned into a redirect by simply replacing its content with:

#REDIRECT [[target-article-name]]

... and everything will be right as rain. See Help:Redirects for more info. If you'd like to do that yourself, I'd encourage it, and let me know if you have any questions. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Joe, thanks. I'd like to work on it as I expect it will be easier for me than someone else since I'm familiar with the information. I'll see what I can do and follow-up if I have any questions. Thanks again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, I did it. It wasn't too bad. If you could take a look at it when you have a moment as another pair of eyes to review it and be sure it's all okay, I'll appreciate it. Thanks! :-) Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for your assistance and suggestions regarding the recent afd and subsequent merge - I appreciate it! :-) Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just helping dust the floors.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 00:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Biogen Idec

Hey Joe, thanks for taking the time to review the Biogen Idec article. I completely understand the reasoning, but I created a new article altogether because of the volume of changes that would have been made. You see no problem with me making those changes to the existing article? Just want to make sure I follow the best practice possible. Thanks again for the time. Jacob.rosen3 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jacob,

In general yes, we encourage people to improve existing articles. Of course, additional editors may then try and improve on your edits, and so on, and so forth. A few caveats, though.

I did go back and take a very brief look at the draft, I've been through a few thousand at this point and my memory isn't what it once was. It felt to me there were a few things I'd recommend changing when you add material.

• First, some of the language still feels a bit like company speak, rather than having a neutral, encyclopedic tone. We generally don't talk, just to pick out a single example, about what a company's research "focuses on", and sentences like "This joint venture brings Biogen Idec’s expertise and capabilities in protein engineering, cell line development, and recombinant biologics manufacturing to position the joint venture so Biogen Idec can participate in the emerging market for biosimilars." are problematic for that reason and others--if it's not a direct copyright violation from a press release, it suggests that we at Wikipedia ascribe expertise to the company, it's essentially promotional-sounding as a result.
• In writing on Wikipedia, look first at what's said in arm's length sources, and summarize that. That last sentence comes from a paragraph about a joint venture with Samsung, but Samsung is not mentioned in there. If you start with what you know to be true, you'll be easily lead astray, but if you start with what secondary sources say, and summarize that, you'll not only have the references work out well, but you'll also likely end up with a balance of coverage that echoes how much attention those subjects recieve in third-party sources, and the result will feel more neutral.
• Leave out the TM and R symbols. See MOS:TM for more on this.
• Skip the "ALL CAPS" in the "Therapy" column, and while we're there, "therapy" reminds me of the computer industry's use of "solution" when they would otherwise say "software" or "application" -- it may look good in a business plan, but most readers will find it non-neutral and less clear than something like "drug".

If you are involved with the company or may be, check out our specific suggestions about that at WP:PSCOI. If you have concerns that your edits might not be seen as neutral for any reason, you can suggest additions and changes on the talk page using the {{requested edit}} template, that will (within a few days) attract the attention of another editor who can give you an arm's length opinion and add the material if they feel it's warranted. It can also help to work on one section at a time, wait for any feedback from other editors, work to resolve them, a full-scale rewrite, if it has problems, will likely generate a lot more drama than working through and improving the article step-by-step.

Wow, I ran off at the mouth, sorry about that.

I hope this helps, and happy editing! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 20:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at FloraWilde's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 03:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion Request -> MagicMail

Joe Decker,

I would like to request that the article, MagicMail, be undeleted.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

-Bob

Hi Bob,

Magic Mail was deleted following the community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MagicMail. Without additional evidence of MagicMail meeting our notability guidelines, in particular, WP:GNG, I wouldn't be able to do that. You may want to peek at an essay I'm working on, User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable, which attempts to describe in the types of sources our guidelines require in what I hope will be a clearer manner. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–La Cross, er, University of Wisconsin–La Crosse

Thanks for fixing this article's page moves. Unfortunately, the "e" was left off the end of the school's name in the title of the article. Would you be able to fix this? Thanks. 32.218.41.190 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear.  :)  Done --j⚛e decker^talk 16:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! 32.218.41.190 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elchin Suleymanov Economist

Hi Joe, thanks for closing this one. However, someone moved the article during the discussion, so all that the script deleted was the redirect that was left behind, but not the article itself :-) I can delete it, too, but it's perhaps better if you do it yourself. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm on it, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 14:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi Joe, thanks for closing Afds - if I could get the Twinkle 'close' tool working again I would do more of it myself. Please remember when closing as 'redirect' to add the appropriate 'R from...' template so that it populates the cat it belongs to. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, excellent point. Thanks for the reminder! --j⚛e decker^talk 14:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)