This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm starting to worry that this taskforce is getting too successful. The rate of progress is beyond ridiculous right now and unless Alaibot starts digging out new work, we'll soon be out of a job... Pascal.Tesson16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at Tedder's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
While I think my most recent edit there improved the article from the previous state, there is still quite a bit of room for improvement. Perhaps you can think of some substitute for the "mysterious forces" phrasing? Or perhaps the claims themselves are inaccurate, given that Eckern himself claimed to be resigning voluntarily rather than at the behest of mysterious forces?--Bhuck (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue is as much about POV as it is redundancy. This is a small section which doesn't need any kind of introductory paragraph. The information that some are adding is already reported: the FBI cautions against blaming Prop 8 opponents and that no leads have been found. The introductory paragraph reports the same information verbatim, accept it was constructed with intent of de-linking the vandalism and terrorism with Proposition 8. Every news source mentions the LDS Church's involvement in Proposition 8 as a likely cause. The introductory paragraph needs to remain deleted. Ejnogarb (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
California Lawyer and Perry v. Schwarzenegger
I just read the California Lawyer article last night and thought that it would be a good idea to review this entry in light of it. Glad to see that you've done that. I haven't done a thorough review, but the one thing that stands out on skimming (and which has been a problem since the beginning) is that the Olson quote - and the tone of that section in general - gives more weight to AFER's view that Olson/Boies are automatically the best judges of whether this lawsuit has a good chance of success vs. the groups' POV that their two decades of experience makes them better judges of that.
My first thought is to add the groups' reasons for attempting to intervene, as stated in the article (i.e. that Walker asked about discovery and Olson was baffled as to why that would be necessary). But it would probably be a better approach to just take out the quote and stick to a "just the facts" recitation of what happened, rather than get into balancing the motivations of each group, especially since this will end up being just a tiny part of the article as the case progresses.
I'll do a more thorough review today or tomorrow and incorporate my thoughts, either in the article or the talk page. Thanks for adding the article. P.S. It just went up online, so I added a link to your ref. Viciouslies (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Also, please remember you are encouraged to look for sources before using the BLP PROD. Antonia Carter has a TV show and has given more interviews than I can count... Please try do a basic search before using the BLP PROD. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Joe,
Thanks for looking at my page on Colm Kiernan and starting my talk page. I do have a problem but it is not with you, but I don't know how to fix it, or what to do about it. I put a {{helpme}} on my talk page, but so far have had no response. It is to do with a separate page, though connected, and I have pasted my problem below
Deaths in March 2010
Colm Kiernan happened to be born in London, to Irish parents. He spent his childhood in Ireland and grew up in Ireland and spent his adulthood mostly in Australia, though there were several years spent in Ireland as an adult too. His names are Irish and he certainly never considered himself British. If he ever had to say it, he would say he happened to be born in England but was Irish-Australian. There is a page in wikipedia devoted to Irish Australians, and many of these were his friends and he has written about them. In generations previous to his, the Irish hated the English, but his father was the first Irish Ambassador and worked harmoniously with the English. I keep deleting it, because he never considered himself British and would have been very offended to have that written there. Why does it need to be there at all? Thanks Margaretjhamilton (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
So where a person is born, is not necessarily their nationality, or how they identified themselves, and is really only a minor detail about some people - almost an accident of fate. Colm Kiernan travelled on an Australian passport, but everything else about him was Irish, including a very strong Irish accent. I have tried to delete British born, several times, but they keep putting it back and the comments are not helpful, but I don't know where or how to comment back. I would prefer it not there at all, but if it really has to be there, why can't it be English-born? Thanks, Margaret Margaretjhamilton (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments and help. I've decided to leave it be, and hope it goes unnoticed, rather than stirring up old battles. As for the helpme - I copied it, and didn't realise the tab turned it off !! Thanks again. Margaretjhamilton (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've expanded this further and proposed it for a DYK actually. I've made some photo requests too, hopefully we can get an image of her. I love Greenland too!!Dr. BlofeldWhite cat12:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks--I'll be making my second trip to Greenland, this time for an artist residency, in August, in and around the Disko Bay area, should be amazing. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Joe Decker, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mark lees has been removed. It was removed by AlfaGT29 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with AlfaGT29 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming up with that source, I'm (as a general statement about myself) a lot more focused on sourcing than notability, it's all good. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the prod from Luc Denommee. It now has a source and there is some semblance of notability. Feel free to send it to AfD if you feel the notability is still in doubt. J04n(talk page)02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a source! I'm good with it, I'm generally a lot more concerned about sourcing than the other fine lines of notability. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Civil partnerships in the UK
I've taken what you've said into account and I've reverted my change, but I've added a note to the word 'almost' explaining the differences. Take a look and see what you think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings: just saw by chance that my page has been deleted and the authenticity of my claims around drag and drop interface innovation for windows have been disputed. I'd like to address this with the aim of having page reinstated and the problems addressed. The challenge is that this was a while ago and not much is online, but I do have (some) the actual product(s), magazine articles, and books that reference it, information on the software publisher and so forth. Some of the folks are still around at PC Magazine and could attest... But I don't have alot of time/energy to pursue this, so I'd like to get some advice and clarity on what is needed. It would be helpful to dialog this or build it incrementally... I wish I had been able to participate and address the deletion discussion so that I could perhaps address the concerns...
Anyway, I'd like to figure out how to get this addressed as I believe my claims are more or less accurate and correct...
Also, is it possible to get a copy of the old content so that I could at least start to address the concerns without starting from scratch.
Also is this the best way to correspond on this?
Thanks
jeffrey greenberg
www.jeffrey-greenberg.com
www.inventivity.com
www.tweettronics.com
I can be reached through email on the sites above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreygreenberg (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Joe, I didn't mean to override your edit here, I just ran into an edit conflict when adding the sources. Coincidentally we were both trying to add the same sources at the same time! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The current situation is sloppy, ill-phrased, inaccurate. Open an RFC and I'll comment. If you choose not to, I will revert. Please move all conversation on this topic to the talk page. I do not believe in deal on personal talk pages - neither should you. PS: Longstanding original text remains until consensus has been reached. Standard practice. 86.172.196.114 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
RFC isn't necessary, the Talk page is traditional. You still haven't addressed, to my knowledge, the specific policy points I've raised there. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Joe, Cheers for the heads up on "minor edits." I rarely edit wikipedia pages and was unaware of these guidelines. Your message was very helpful in pointing me to important information. Thanks !Tyler (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Tbc32
Unfortunately I didn't keep notes on the articles I have read but not sourced. In the past, I frequently would hit the random article function on the unreferenced BLPs page. If I could source them, I would but I didn't leave a mark if I couldn't. So the record of hundreds of articles I have fixed are buried in my "contributions" but not the misses. When I found patterns, I would chase them. That ultimately led me to avoid many foreign sounding names, while it also led me to, among others, chasing a lengthy list of Russian names in September 2009 that all turned out to be easily sourced Russian Olympic athletes. Admittedly, I have not been as active in BLP sourcing lately--I've just got better things to do.Trackinfo (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
You'll likely need this after sourcing all those Hurler/Irish footballer articles
Jezebel'sPonyoshhh has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Joe, I noticed a few vandalism reversions amidst all your referencing, would you be interested in wp:rollback? If so have a read of it and tell me when you would and wouldn't use it. ϢereSpielChequers10:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Were! Thank you! I do see a bit of vandalism here and there, I haven't done much in the way of new page patrolling but I have a large watch list, some of which contains some vandalism "targets of choice" and have been doing a little bit of review over at Pending Changes. Rollback would help a little, sure.
I'd expect to use it only for the most blatent cases of reversion-worthy vandalism/nonsense. There seem to be two facets to the feature that are at the core of why it's something needing caution--edit summaries and the minor edit flag. The lack of custom edit summaries are problematic for anything even possibly controversial b/c they don't give a place to "give the reason for the reversion", the edit has to explain itself to any editor who looks at it. The m-flag would, I'd think, play into it, some edtiors may have set their watchlist to exclude minor edits and in some ways a reversion of something even slightly controversial could be seen as an attempt to "slip something by". (The latter is speculation on my part, but it seems logical.) I'd imagine inappropriate rollbacks would tend to escalate problems into edit warring and such.
I see also the point that rollback is inappropriate (b/c of the nature of the standardized edit summary) for edits by editors with blatently problematic usernames, because that username will appear in the RB's edit summary. Sure, that makes sense.
WP:rollback lists two other cases for use--my own user pages, which seems an easy case, the other mass rollbacks where there's agreement of the need for a some large-scale reversion, whcih seems a lot rarer and something I haven't had a need for, I might never need to. But if I did, well, an example might be, "What if I found the few hundred repetitive sourcing edits I just made were all were broken in some way?, how could I quickly press undo 400 times?", There mass rollback might make sense, with caution. So, I'd document the proposed fix, get consensus on the change, not only what to change and whether the usage was appropriate, but also for advice (particularly the first couple times) on the best way to actually implement the change, etc. --j⚛e deckertalk16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thats about the size of it. Never roll back anyone else's edits unless you are confident that they were vandalising (I've never yet used the mass rollback feature). I've enabled it on your account. Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh and thanks for your email agreeing for me to create this. May I suggest that when you think it is ready to go in, you save it and don't transclude until the beginning of your next session. PS Good luck. ϢereSpielChequers11:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And thank you! Your confidence in me means a lot, and whatever the outcome, I'm sure I'll get great feedback. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk18:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Oh my goodness, that's so much better! I did make a couple very minor changes (one broken wikilink, a couple of spacing issues, and I changed the reference to the 35mm film size to a wikilink ("35mm" is a relatively well-recognized idiom as a film size/format, so the "size:" was probably unnecessary), but ... wow! Thank you!!! --j⚛e deckertalk14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think so, I think I see something at AZ Central [1] and one or two articles that get that safely above the notability bar. (GNews provides, although not via searching on the case name.) The Lambda Legal page is good enough to source the connection of those articles with the case name, not that I think we'll get too much backpush on that. Not sure that it'll ever be a huge article, but heck, who knows? Want me to take a crack at it, you want to?
I hope I'm not jinxing anything here, but I wanted to pop in to say congratulations before the chaos starts. Cheers!--Jezebel'sPonyoshhh18:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC) PS Take your pick for a celebratory drink:
On behalf of the community, I award you with your broom
Enjoy using it. And may your underwear always be asbestos. Just a nicely flameproof but non-dangerous type. Congratulations. --Dweller (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Joe! You are right about the reversion. H. Arctic is newer and prettier, but that's it − it's not 'main' in any sense of the word. Though personally, I'd stay away from Hvide Falk solely due to its wonky architecture, but that's just me ;) Greetings, — Algkalv (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
*grin* It is wacky, isn't it? Had about 5 days at HHF (HA was booked up, and I hadn't really investigated HI) after doing a 2-week stint as a ships photographer on MS Fram in the Disko Bay region, and it was certainly fine (and the nearly-secret Thai restaurant in HHF was a pleasant surprise), but yeah, HHF is not so much to look at. :) --j⚛e deckertalk16:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello Joe Decker, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.
I believe this article should go to AfD now. It's already had one PROD tag (which was removed by an IP). I posted a note on the IP's talk page suggesting that he/she provides references pronto but since nothing has happened, I was planning to nominate it for AfD this weekend. OK?--Plad2 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's great, I'll pull the PROD and let you submit. I'd noticed a previous BLPPROD but hadn't seen it'd had a normal one, my bad. --j⚛e deckertalk22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your good humor.
I admit that I inwardly cringed a bit when I saw the "new messages" banner this morning. My mouse cursor paused shakily over what was sure to be my global block... Cheers, Efcmagnew (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Catholic
The phrase "or were" refers to deceased people because it would be inappropriate to state that they "are" Catholic. Regarding Dan Savage, look at footnote number 10; he identifies himself as an atheist. I think that throws serious doubt into the issue of whether he self-identifies as Catholic. Please find a better source. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Does it? That wasn't how I read it, but that reading of the inclusion category hadn't occurred to me. I'll revert my edit, you make an arguable case. --j⚛e deckertalk20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLPCAT, which supersedes any category description. There is no evidence that Savage currently sef-identifies as a Catholic, especially when he refers to himself as an atheist. Cresix (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you were challanging me to continue making a case. Sometimes I read too quickly. Thanks for the discussion. Cresix (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Calvinist? Could you cite that please as there doesn't appear any content to support it, also the Baptist claim appears weak, I would appreciate it if you can direct me to the support for that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure! I'd thought the one in the article lede covered this (without looking, my bad), but here's an example of their self-identification. [3] --j⚛e deckertalk21:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will add that cite tomorrow or you are also welcome too, anyways, it looks totally supported, regards. ...add, I see you added it, nice one.Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! It'll probably be tomorrow before I get to it, I have to run for the evening, but I look forward to it. Again, my thanks. :) --j⚛e deckertalk01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, I spend most of my time here trying to (incrementally) clean up poor articles, particularly unsourced BLPs, the vast majority of which aren't at AfD or PROD, so this shot you're taking here doesn't really hit home for me. I add send a moderate number of articles AfD/PRODwise myself--once I've made a reasonable attempt to look for sources. I got no problem with deletion, within Wikipedia policy, and in fact thought the vast majority of your drive-in nominations were entirely sensible. (Was prepared to delete them myself, but the PRODs hadn't quite expired when I happened by them on my "dashboard".) While it's true that you and I disagree with you about this one article, this isn't some Big Deal, and there's no need to make it into one. I'm sorry if you're upset at me about something here, and if I came off badly, I'm sorry for that as well. How about I buy you a wikipint and we call it a day? --j⚛e deckertalk00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not taking anger at you or anything. You did a good job on the article. But had I not AFD'ed it, nobody would've ever touched the damn thing, and it'd still be a super-short article devoid of sources. I'm noticing that a lot lately. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha, fair enough. I totally see that's frustrating. I think it really just is mostly that there's a huge backlog of stuff htat really needs work ([4] is only one part of that), but I'm with you on this--there's a lot of stuff out there that can be cleaned up, and I wish there were more hands on the job. Thanks for the explanation! --j⚛e deckertalk00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.
Telling me I've said something I haven't,
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said primary sources were invalid, I just corrected you that they are not secondary sources.— DædαlusContribs23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It appeared to me that your edit summary suggested that. As I have apparently misundestood you, and I understand edit summaries are terse and open to misinterpretation, I sincerely apologize. I have left a question on the talk page asking you to elaborate on that point. Thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:Requests_for_undeletion#Grenfell_College_Student_Union. It's my understanding that proposed deletions are undeleted on request as a matter of process, but I'm fairly new to the undeletion game and if I've mucked up the process please let me know. I did note to the author (on their talk page) and in the article tagging I did the problems that will likely lead to the article not surviving AfD. If there's a bigger problem than notability/sourcing going on here (copyright, defamation, etc.) drop me a note here or an email. --j⚛e deckertalk03:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Down syndrome reversion
Please reconsider or explain this reversion: "Dr. Henry Diaz et al" is not a correctly formatted citation as academic titles are not as far as I know used. Diaz does not appear in the article references and was introduced by change without edit summary so this should as far as I can see not be allowed.
It's not very well put together that particular section, but a quick google for "reeves downs syndrome" brings up plenty of reliable hits. On the other hand, if you wnat to know where it's raining, Diaz is your man! a_man_alone (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, agreed all around. Thanks again for your understanding, and I've created a non-rollback alternate account (as allowed by policy) now to avoid this problem happening in the future. --j⚛e deckertalk19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Francky. While I did propose this for deletion for a few minutes about a week ago, about 8 minutes after I did, here: [6], I retracted the proposal after having found the MTV nomination. You'll note that I added a reference to that nomination at the same time. So, first, you're not at risk of me deleting the article any time soon.
I should have left another note on your talk page that I'd removed the "proposed deletion." I apologize for not letting you know.
However, you should know that there is still an issue with the article. The main policy for keeping articles here at Wikipedia is the "general notability guideline", you can read about it here: WP:GNG. If you read and understand that policy you'll learn why neither the French wikipedia article nor the Youtube video qualify as references that establish the "notability" that's required, whereas the MTV award (and in particular, news articles naming DJ as a nominee) do go towards that. Still, it would be helpful if there were more such articles.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry--I'm not trying to delete the article. If you can find more reliable and secondary sources independent from the artist to add to the references to help document the claims in the article, that will help a lot. (If you want to know what I mean by "reliable and secondary", read that link to WP:GNG, or ask me for more information.) Newspaper and magazine articles are often good for this, there's no requirement that they be in English if that helps. If you have any questions, please drop me a note! I'll be happy to try and lend a hand! --j⚛e deckertalk03:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.
More Cowbell Bruce Dickinson?
I'm really new to editing Wikipedia, so figuring out how to send messages to other users was difficult. Still not sure I'm doing it right. Anyway, as to the article... I'm a bit surprised. I always assumed it was the singer from Iron Maiden they were trying to portray. I guess I should be more careful. Thanks for being polite with me about my change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdtipa (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, this is fine--yeah, I thought it was the Iron Maiden guy too at first, but the sources say different. I think that's pretty cool. Welcome to Wikipedia! Don't hesitate to drop me a line here if I can ever help you with Wikistuff, we were all new here once. --j⚛e deckertalk18:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Re. "drop me a line if there's something that needs to be looked at urgently" (BLPN)
Thanks for offering to look into that one.
I wouldn't say 'urgent' as such; I'm just concerned about the unsourced BLP stuff, especially regarding the alleged nickname and 4Chan connections, really. I note this edit which looks like primary/non-RS.
Joe - Please go ahead and delete the Bailey Jay wiki page. I initially started it for informational purposes and an exercise in seeing if I could do it but it's become abundantly clear that, from my recent experiences with this, the Wiki administrators and power editors tend to exercise their opinions over factual content. It's also become clear that no matter how much of the content is removed or edited to banality, that there is a definite sense of editing non-conformist wiki articles to deletion. I've been in communications with the actress to provide additional biographical data but I don't have the time to make daily corrections to the article or to put up with the game. So, I give up. I appreciate the work you and the other Wiki power editors put into this project. You might consider, in the future, taking a less elitist approach to editing and being more helpful to other contributors. Believe it or not, we may have interesting, informative and accurate encyclopedic information that people would be interested to know. BTW, if I still had edit capabilities to the Bailey Jay Wiki, I would have deleted it myself. Peace... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dplouff (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, I understand your feelings. We have guidelines here for what articles are kept and what aren't. Honestly, within those guidelines, I'd rather this article be kept if it can be properly sourced, the problem is that I've given it an honest effort myself and haven't been able to find the sources we need to "meet that bar." The controlling policies of importance here are WP:GNG, WP:PORNSTAR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS and WP:BLP.
The reasons for my nomination of this article are, in my view, not about elitism but rather about being sure that the articles we write, particularly about living people, are accurate, fair, non-promotional, and most importantly non-libelous. Articles that can be written based on multiple (say) newspaper and book accounts have a very high probability of being accurate and neutral. That's what our notability guidelines above attempt to protect.
We get a fair number of hoax articles here, we get a fair number of articles that contain unsubstantiated and negative claims, and there' a fairly strong effort going on right now to try and clean that up. (We have a long way to go in terms of the encyclopedia as a whole.) That's all the other editor who reported to this article to the BLP noticeboard asked for. In particular, in looking at the article (and you can see this in what I addressed first), the thing that concerned me was that the claim that the actress had essentially "fooled" people could be read as an accusation against the actress. Alternatively, it could be (and it appears to be, if you asked me for my best guess) a rather awesome story about how the name "Line Trap" came about.
However, what "I believe" isn't the question. Barring reliable sources making sense of that (and, nearly as a rule, blogs and self-published sites aren't considered "reliable" for this purpose), WP:BLP required me to immediatley remove the information. It's not an option, it's policy.
It had been my hope that by pointing you at some of the relevant policies you'd have a better understanding of what the concerns here were, but apparently I've done a poor job of communicating that, and for that, I do apologize.
Whether or not to delete it is not mine to decide, there's a process where other editors attempt, as best they can, to determine if the article does (or can be improved to) meet our policies. Those who don't believe it is or can be so improved will likely vote to delete, those who can improve it or think it can be improved will likely vote "keep." People can change their votes, as I do on the occasion when I've proposed articles and people have found relevant sources (that meet the relevant policies) to establish verifiability and notability.
One of the reasons my nomination at AfD for this article came about later than the removal of the sentences surrounding the nickname "Line Trap" was that I wanted to spend more time trying to find such reliable sources, and in fact I did put some effort into it, with little success.
Anyway, that's what's going on, feel free to reply if I can make more sense of this to you.
To the extent that you want to see the article kept, the best thing you can do is to find newspaper articles or books that provide significant coverage of Bailey but are independent of her, and add them to the article. Read the various WP policies I linked for guidance, or ask me or other editors here. Don't bother trying to get the formatting perfect if it's a pain, that's easily fixed and if the sources are "there" I'll be happy to do any cleanup for style, what will win votes for keeping the article is the existence of sources that establish notability under the relevant policies, no more, no less. Find those, and I'll cheerfully argue for keeping, rather than deleting, this article.
There's a lot more useful info in [7], particularly misrepresentation of research, which is typical of groups like ACP. I'll let you edit the article for now since there's no point in edit conflicting all the time. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thai footy
Thank you too Joe, for the kind words. It's nothing however, compared to the 1,200 that you have cleared up. My effort was really just a drop in the BLP ocean. I would like to do more, but I have too many plates spinning at the moment trying to prevent new unsourced BLP from arriving here - mainly concerning socks, CCI and mass produced stubs. I'm probably going to have to apply for a set of those mops and buckets before I can make any real headway, because I can work when most of the en.Wiki world is asleep :) --Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but we'd never be making progress on the backlog if there weren't good people like yourself manning the "front door." It all matters. :) I haven't looked through your history much, but I've had positive impressions of your contributions, me and my watchlist will be keeping an eye out for the day you consider running the gauntlet. :) --j⚛e deckertalk05:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You PRODed Byadrangiin Lkhagvasüren because of sourcing issues. I've been able to source his participation at the 2006 Asian Games. I'm still not convinced that this alone is sufficient notability per WP:ATHLETE, but I've removed the PROD and slapped a notability tag on it instead. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! I need little help in fight against vandalism on articles about Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture and history in general. Several well known users obviously intentionally break rules of Wikipedia. They are most active on the talk page - Talk:Ukrainians. These users often delete sources and then set their own inaccurate interpretation with no sources. The same users often delete every trace of Ukrainian impact in Russian history and culture on other articles. This is a very serious issue because same users do not allow me and some other users to work on the same issues objectively for a long time. Closely following their activities, it can be said that this is pure anti-ukrainian sentiment which borders with fascism. There is a small informational war against the Ukrainians, their culture and selfidentification! These are powerful words but they have their background. You can check itself and the work of these contributors. Please do something, or forward this appeal to the responsible administrators. Thanks a lot!--SeikoEn (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Some examples of erasing every trace of the Ukrainian impact in Russian culture and history. First example can be Fyodor Dostoyevsky or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Their fathers were from Ukraine, and several users constantly erases that fact. On the other side, they are distorting facts and completely distort the meaning of article about Ukrainians and their culture. Some traces:
I have not followed all the examples but I believe they are in some cases worse. These customers are very clever and they know what they are doing very well! They do it for a long time. I even doubt in ambivalence of their identity. These are the true meaning of vandalism jobs at Wikipedia! Thanks for the effort, I have honest intentions for this Wikipedia, but it is evident that some users are here to carry out political propaganda. --SeikoEn (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I've started to look through this material and several other affected pages, and I won't get through all of it tonight. Sorry for the delay, my life outside of Wikipedia intervenes sometimes. --j⚛e deckertalk08:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no problem. This question can not be solved at once, I am aware of that. I wanted to start and support further observation work on the articles about Ukrainians, Ukraine ... in fight against vandalism. Take your time, I understnd you completly - same problems at my home ... :-)--SeikoEn (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. And complex content disputes (and this is one) are not my area of expertise, a situation made worse (no doubt) because of my own lack of education on the subject matter. That's okay, just letting you know in advance. :) --j⚛e deckertalk08:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, life outside of has gotten busy, so I'm going to have to suggest a few directions you can head rather than getting as directly involved. Many complex POV disputes are, by their nature, sort of long-running wars, and they're incredibly frustrating to deal with. From a direct editing point of view, the best tactics to take are to find sources that you believe to be reliable via WP:RS that say, as clearly as possible, what you think the article should say, and use those to defend the content you think is correct. It looks like in many cases you're already doing that, but I say this because I know often I need to remind myself of the same thing in the content disputes I've been in myself.
I know in one or two cases that I've seen in this dispute so far there've been pretty strong arguments about what is or isn't a reliable source. When that proves intractable in a talk page discussion, the easiest way to sometimes get an outside opinion and eyes on that specific question, if it can't be resolved at the talk page, is to take it to WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. Most of the editors there will have little experience with the specific dispute involved, but are generally pretty evenhanded about the general heuristics we use here at WP to tell reliable from unreliable sources (reliability depends not just on the source, but what the source is saying, we might consider a person a reliable source for their own birthday but not for a claim that they won the Nobel prize), for example.
But I think you're saying, and I understand this feeling as well, that there is a larger systemic bias problem here. And that's a difficult sort of problem for outside editors to come and address, but I would suggest you consider posting to WP:NPOVN. Focus on specific articles and claims that you think are biased, and have your evidence (in the form of sources, etc.) at the ready. While it is incredibly frustrating (and almost always the case) that these sorts of content disputes bring out people who persistently edit articles with a given slant, focusing on the actual content, issues and sources rather than the editors is what will actually get you some help on the ground. To the extent that there are problematic editors, that will be more and more visible with time with those additional eyes on the ground.
Sorry I can't provide the sort of focused time looking at this issue is going to need, but I'm just one of a couple thousand admins here on Wikipedia, and I hope that you'll find some eyes to help work on making Ukraine-related material on WP better at the resources I suggested. Thanks for your patience! --j⚛e deckertalk18:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You deleted Red Books because it expired its PROD. I am concerned that the editor who put the PROD on has been putting PROD on a lot of articles for organisations and publications he has a religious objection to (mostly progressive organisations and publications within Adventism). He also failed to notify the authors of the articles about the PRODs. I have removed a load of his PRODs as I do not feel "No notability" is a sufficient deletion rationale on an article that has at least some referencing and claim to notability and that a religious grudge should play no part in proposing articles for deletion.
I have no idea what the article on Red Books looked like but it is quite possible that it did not deserve to be deleted. Perhaps you could either review it yourself or put a copy in my userspace for me to see if it is rescuable?
Also, it might be worth making a list of any other articles he was able to get put through PROD and see if any of them need rescuing too.
Sorry to drop a can of worms in your lap but I really don't like the idea that some guy with a grudge can quietly delete articles without anybody noticing.
Hi Daniel. Thanks for contacting me directly, I'll take a couple steps to look more carefully at Aventism-related deletion requests in the future. The article is about a play put on by a single college, there are some external links which discuss it from a source or not. My gut reaction on glancing at it again is that it's an arguable case on notability, on a different day, I'd probably have suggested the PROD'er take it to AfD. I have not done a hard core search for sourcing, and my intuition could be wrong.
As it was an uncontested PROD, it can be restored (either in-place, or a copy to your userspace) at the first request to do so, if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to restore it to your userspace and let you take a look at it, etc. If, after you've seen it you think it should stay, we can move it back in place, I wouldn't have any desire to challenge it, and future requests would have to go to AfD.
By the way, if I'm ever not around, uncontested PRODs are also usually restored or userified on request at WP:UND, but when I'm around I'd rather help fix my own mistakes.) Just drop me a line here if you'd like to see the article userfied, or an email if you'd rather I drop you a copy of the article via email for review. --j⚛e deckertalk23:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Please put it in my user space. There is no point putting it back in the article space if it might only need to be deleted again.
BTW, it was never my intention to suggest that you had made a mistake. An unconstested PROD is fair game for deletion if it doesn't look blatantly inappropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I didn't hear you suggesting anything negative--I'm just saying that I like it when people tell me about their concerns about my work, because I *do* make errors, and that's the only way I'm ever gonna hear of them.
Anyway, userfied to User:DanielRigal/Red_Books. Take a look and drop me a line as to whether you think it does meet GNG (or could with additional sources, or such), and I'll move it back into place (you could do this yourself, but that'd leave a redirect from your userspace) -- if it doesn't, drop me a line and I'll send it back to the deletion attic so that it gets filed correctly there. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My thought on reading it is that it is not notable enough for its own article but I see no problem with dropping a slimmed down version into Ellen G. White as an "In fiction" section. Does that sound sensible? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds very sensible to me. What I'd suggest, then, is that you merge what info you want from Red Books into the White article, and then let me know you're done so that I can redelete "Red Books" in such a way that it's sort of put back correctly in the deletion attic. No hurry, just drop me a line when you've grabbed what you need! --j⚛e deckertalk22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have appealed your proposed deletion for Christodoulos Sabbatos-reasons given on talk page. I should also be grateful for restitution of the Tzerpos article professorial notoriety reason and to permit expansion- with thanks----Clive Sweetingmoved from user page15:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Joe Decker. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tainan (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There does not appear to have been a merger. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk07:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, thanks for the note! There was a bit of a clusterfoo there between several .. ah, nevermind. You did the right thing. Thanks. :) --j⚛e deckertalk07:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Glad to! I catch a fair number of those sourcing unsourced BLPs, and still have to look up the funny subst expression every time. --j⚛e deckertalk00:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at NYKevin's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Joe Decker.
Can you please stop taking down the site I am working on for my job.
I work for the designer Nicole Miller and have been straddled with working on the wiki page. I am trying to go through and cite everything now, even though I have no idea what I am doing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmiller25 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've substantially rewritten this article and referenced nearly everything in it. I can't verify a couple of minor items about his football career, but it turns out that's not why he's notable. Please take a look at the new article. If you agree that he now passes WP:N and WP:V please consider revising your contributions to the deletion discussion. Thanks! Pburka (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I blew my reading of that entirely, I thought the con man and the football/CIA guy were separate individuals, which (as per your sources) isn't the case. Well done! Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk18:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't have a solid reference saying they're the same person. But they're both the same age, both from Milwaukee and both connected to Marquette University. We also know that Ron Rewald, the con-man, ran a sporting goods store in Milwaukee in the 1970s, which fits quite well. The unreliable http://www.kycbs.net/Rewald.htm also claims they're the same. It's pretty clear that the article was created by the subject; my guess is that he's trying to rehabilitate his name a bit. Pburka (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and at this point, whether the con man played/was signed to football is a relatively minor content issue. Thanks! Have a great weekend! --j⚛e deckertalk20:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Joe Decker.
Can you please stop taking down the site I am working on for my job.
I work for the designer Nicole Miller and have been straddled with working on the wiki page. I am trying to go through and cite everything now, even though I have no idea what I am doing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmiller25 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
Unfortunately, there are several policy issues going on here, and if you'd like to continue editing the Nicole Miller page without being blocked from editing you'll need to understand them. I'll try to help explain, and point you in some directions you can head for further assistance. Please read each of the articles I link to below, as the contain detailed explanations of the terms we use here in Wikipedia policy.
To begin, Wikipedia is not intended to be your (or Ms. Miller's) web site host, if you want to write "anything you want" about Ms. Miller regardless of our policies, there are low-cost web hosting providers that are available for you to do so.
Instead of being a web hosting provider, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles in the encyclopedia aim to be written from an objective, encyclopedic point of view. While we don't always manage it, we do try and keep this from turning into a free promotional resource. Writing objectively about someone is very hard to do when you have, as you admit you have here, a conflict of interest in the matter, and in general it is strongly recommended (but not prohibited) that you don't try. However, I understand that someone is paying you to try and write this article, and that you'll likely continue to try to do so. Similarly, many editors here will just as quickly revert edits that they find to be problematic for one reason or another. If you want them (not just me) to stop, you'll need to understand the various policies that guide this process.
The article was left quite a long time "unreferenced", and that is one (but not all) of the issues that are involved here. One way we work to establish a neutral point-of-view in encyclopedia articles is to ask that what's said in those articles is backed by reliable, secondary sources, that is, newspapers and books (not press releases, not the designer's web site) that provide that information. We're particularly strongly concerned with this in regard to the biographies of living people. If you have those sources, it can seem difficult to "add references" but it's not really that hard, you simply write <ref> then the information you want in the footnote, then </ref>. It's great if you can get it to look pretty, but far more important that the sources of the information be reliable, secondary (that is, not affiliated with Ms. Miller), and it's helpful but not required if they're available on-line, with a URL provided. If an editor can't confirm what you say the source says, you're going to run into a lot more trouble getting your proposed changes to "stick."
One more issue that sometimes comes up (and i'm not sure if this was the case here) is sometimes editors cut-and-paste from materials produced by the person they're writing about, e.g., if you were to copy information from Miller's (no doubt copyrighted) web site or resume. We'd have to remove such contributions as copyright violations unless a variety of hoops are gone through to grant us the rights to use and distribute that information freely.
I hope this information is useful to you, if you'd like additional help learning how it might be possible for you to make some changes to the Miller article that "stick" without being reverted by various editors quickly, you might ask for assistance over at the conflict-of-interest noticeboard.
Thank you for the tool suggestion. I've never installed any wiki tools, so I'll have to find time to give "RefToolbar" a try. Until then, can you please be more specific about what you didn't like with my {{cite}} usage? I know two of the references should have been {{cite news}}, but I was pressed for time, and I figured any ref is better than no ref. (I'm planning to go back and re-format them soon, so feel free to leave them to me.) What else should I have done differently? Johnson487682 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the note. I'm still working on getting more references at my local Jewish library. Meanwhile, do you know how to fix the Brisker Family Tree? Berel is the eldest son, but the tree makes it look like Meshulam Dovid is. I'm not sure about the rest of the birth order of the siblings. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As near as I can tell, a complete finger fumble on my watchlist page, my sincere apologies. I'll double-check that there isn't another cause, but that wasn't intentional, and I take complete responsibility for my error. My apologies, that was just clumsy. --j⚛e deckertalk to me22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
To reduce the chance of this happening again, I've disabled "click to tap" on my primary laptop touchpad. (The touchpad can emulate a mouse click with a gentle tap, or by pressing down firmly, the former is a bit more pleasant an experience, but apparently unnecessarily error-prone.) --j⚛e deckertalk to me22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support Joe - your words at my RfA were incredibly kind. Working with editors such as yourself is a big reason why I enjoy editing Wikipedia. Here's to many more years of collaboration! (But hopefully only a few more months of URBLPR. I'm hoping it becomes obsolete in the near future). Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you are quite welcome, I meant every word! And indeed, I look forward to the day that we can raise a glass of our beverages-of-choice at toast to the end this sourcing backlog! --j⚛e deckertalk to me21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of that great day, do you think once we hit 10k we'll be able to put together some final push campaign to attract volunteers? Or do you think we've already exhausted the options (signpost, watchlist message etc)? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a great question--I suspect that we've temporarily exhausted some of those routes, but not permanently. I saw at least one discussion on the idea of redoing the watchlist notice in a few months, and I think that would work well, particularly if we were a bit closer to zero then--the more it looks like something that could be finished off with one big final push, the more support I'd guess we'd see. I also still have a faint hope that the backlog-reducing effects of BLPPROD are still kicking in over time, there are still an awful lot of 3/18/10 articles in the January '11 unsourced pile, and it's my hope that as we clear the invisible portion of the unsourced BLP backlog things will get easier. How about yourself, what are your thoughts on it? --j⚛e deckertalk to me22:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If I may but in, we haven't done a signpost article for a while but I think we should when we hit 10k. Also we could send a bot message to the authors, and to the wikiprojects, (though spamming the authors would require a bot request). ϢereSpielChequers00:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think 10k is a golden opportunity (people like nice round numbers like that). We need to pull together all similar projects (URBLP, URA, URBLPR and GBD) to really push to the finish line. Once we're down to just a few thousand I'm confident we can handle them on our own in short order. From that point on it's all about guarding the gates. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots00:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
WSC: Love to have you join the conversation, I actually trust your judgment on this better than my own, and certainly 10,000 is a round, shiny number for a Signpost article. Do you think the author notification idea has a chance of getting approved at bot request? I've never really hung out there, so I don't know how much pushback there'd be. Ponyo: Yep, although NPP leaks articles (e.g., some articles never get patrolled (I think), but I think it'll be easier to hold an empty backlog once we have it, BLPPROD really does make a big difference. --j⚛e deckertalk to me02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Tim1357 did two runs last year, but so far he has only sent one message to each author. Only a minority actually fixed their articles, but some of the feedback we had was along the lines of "thanks for digging out those old articles of mine". In many such cases there will be more old uBLPs now found and tagged. So I'm fairly confident both that we could get approval and also that it would have a useful impact, but we need a bot writer to do it. For most of these people it would be a reminder or refreshed list more than 12 months after the last message. ϢereSpielChequers10:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Have to say that I"m kinda temped to learn how to 'bot author, but I've been out of the software game for a number of years at this point and ... might be better for all concerned if I didn't. *grin* --j⚛e deckertalk to me04:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I messed up a bit changing the name from "Academic art in Brazil" to "Brazilian Academic Art". I hope to get more proficient in using the wiki in the future, and I'll ask for help if needed. Anyway, there are many articles from portuguese wiki to be translated, so I'll try to help with that. Cheers,Diego Vieitez (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no worries, it was simple to fix, I just wanted to make sure I knew what was intended! There is an option in the menus to move (rename) files, but if it isn't there for some reason or you have trouble, feel free to ask, I'm happy to do it--just drop me a note here, or ask someone for assistance at WP:MOVE. The translation work you're doing is incredibly valuable, it's often difficult to find editors here at the English Wikipedia with any ability with both English and Portugese, don't be too surprised if I'm asking you for help in the future! And welcome to Wikipedia! --j⚛e deckertalk to me01:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and be sure to ask me of anything that you guys need. I've been using the pedia for years and its a pleasure to give content back.Diego Vieitez (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
