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.
Hey Joe (where you going with that gun in your hand?) sorry I just want to let you know that I removed your prod from Rob Hague and redirected the page to Smash (band), there are a few refs for that page and he is mentioned in them. J04n(talk page)19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(Comment added mid-page, but appears to be unrelated to the section it was added to, so I've moved it to its own section)
IM SO ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AA00- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.24.65 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete the article. I created it over four years ago and the nature of my editing has changed over time. I believe I simply wished to create a page where there had been a red link and my hope was that others may be able to develop it, but we are talking about a minor Macedonian political party so there is little information on its leader. He may not even be the leader now. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, yeah, it can be pretty hard to find sourcing there. Thank you for letting me know that you saw the issue. What will likely happen is that the PROD notice will sit for another 5-6 days just in case another editor is able to find more significant sourcing for the subject. If not, and nobody objects, then another administrator (that is, someone beside myself) will review the nomination one more time, just to make sure that I haven't missed something obvious. Your contributions--they are appreciated, they're just getting caught in the drive to try and make sure that biographies of living people are well-sourced. Have a great week, and thank you again for the note. --j⚛e deckertalk to me23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries Joe. Given we have an article based on an actual person, I suppose there is no harm in recreating a previously deleted article if indeed new information emerges. I'll see what I can do in the meantime. Thanks all the same. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, if new info emerges, it will be uncontroversial for me or another administrator to undelete the article at that time, either drop me a note in that case or make a request at WP:UNDELETE. Cheers! --j⚛e deckertalk to me23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Joe, though the press office here at 13th Generation Productions is small, they put up the article. Instead of deleting it why didn't you just find the citing you needed to "legitimize" the article in question. This is Steve Romanko and yeah, it feels like you nominated to delete this article for no really good reason. If you search the internet you could have edited the article to make it compatible with whatever rules are devised. Please put the article back. Unlike some I do not hide behind any walls, you can contact me at stevejr1701@yahoo.com or check my facebook page or the IMDB page or myspace, or our vimeo page or my association with being a film instructor as well as a producer. And yes Joe Decker, you are as careless as you are sloppy about this deletion.
If I may jump in here. Your article was nominated for deletion by an editor other than Joe Decker, he simply followed through on the admin task of deleting the article once the time limit on the proposed deletion had expired. Reviewing the article it appears Steve Romanko does not meet the notability criteria required for a Wikipedia article; a search for sources turned up little in the way of the significant coverage required. In addition, the article contained a number of unsourced statements and consisted largely of original research and unencyclopedic content. There is no requirement for others to to make your contributions viable, and individuals associated with the subject should not be starting the article; if Romanko is notable enough someone uninvolved will eventually create the article. Finally, and certainly not least, your final sentence constitutes a personal attack - I have struck it on your behalf. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots21:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Steve.
I understand your frustration at having your article removed. I don't know how much you know about Wikipedia policy and such (and honestly, there's so much here that doesn't align with policy that it's easy to be confused on that point), so let me try and give you some background about the various processes here, and so on.
First, as Ponyo suggests, I didn't make the initial determination that the article should probably be deleted, another editor did, and as it turns out it happens to be a fairly knowledgable and long-established editor here. At that point that editor chose one of the three different "paths to deletion" available to Wikipedia (those are called "speedy deletion", "proposed deletion" and "Articles for Deletion", respectively. The editor chose the second, one used when there's no hurry (e.g., it's not a case of clear copyright violation, defamation, etc.) but when the editor expects that there is not going to be any policy-based controversy about whether the article should stay. In the proposed deletion process, a message is displayed on the article for seven days, and the Talk page of the editor who created the article is typically notified as well (as you were notified here), indicating that the article may be deleted. If a single editor objects (and that can be any editor, yourself included), all they need do is remove the tag, and voila, that process is terminated. If the article stays tagged for seven days, it goes to an administrator (which happened to be me this time, but there are about 1,000 active administrators here), who reviews that all the niceties have been followed, looks for any obvious mistakes (e.g., someone quite famous being deleted, mistakes in the time stamp on the deletion proposal, etc.) and processes the deletion. This process is outlined in more detail at the proposed deletion link above.
Now, do I look deeper into some deletions than others? Sure, although no searches are actually called for by policy, I did a quick peek a bit at this one and only came up with only a single clear case of a reference that met that standard, a 2008 piece in the Red Bluff Daily News. That total falls short of our WP:BASIC policy. That policy states:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
While the language here seems clear, there's a fair bit of history and common understanding at Wikipedia about what these words mean in the context of our policies. To pick a single example, "Reliable sources" is a tricky term--you may be surprised (as I was some years back) to know that IMDB is not considered a reliable source.
It was and is my belief that the article wasn't likely to be able to be fixed to meet this policy based on what I (and presumably the editor who nominated the article for deletion) saw.
You do have recourse, of course it is possible that there are sources I missed, etc. I went into some detail about this being a "proposed deletion", all you have to do to (for now) get this article or any other deleted by a proposed deletion is to ask. I'll do it if you ask, or you can take the request to WP:UNDELETE. If you do ask (here or there), and if you don't come up with some more sources that give me a better sense that you'd meet the relevant notability guidelines (in addition to WP:BASIC you'll also want to review WP:FILMMAKER, if you can show you meet one of those criteria), then it's likely that I or another editor will take the article to Articles for Deletion (the third deletion process), at which point it'll go through a week (sometimes longer) process of discussion by other editors. Whether that's likely to succeed depends on what other material you bring to bear on the questions. Nobody really wants to delete your article ... if we can base what's written there on published, third-party, significant publications providing in-depth coverage of you.
Ponyo has another good point above, it's really discouraged (but not prohibited) to write about yourself (this includes getting a friend or coworker to write about you), and that factor does tend to weigh in discussions. WP:COI is a good introduction to some of the issues involved.
Finally, I'll add that this probably would have never come to anyone's attention if there had been reliable sources added to the article in the first place. In an effort to beat down all sorts of problems that arise when people write about other living people and don't attribute sources (and we've seen some ugly ones), we're making an effort to add sources to every biography of living people, and we requested your assistance. You were asked to provide sources for this article here on August 19 of last year, just shy of six months ago. There was also a big box at the top of the article, added in April 2010, saying there was a problem. There was more than enough time for you to have avoided this conflict as well.
I've dumped a lot of text on you here, and a lot of links to sometimes-confusing policies, if I can help explain anything in more detail, please leave a note here and I will be more than glad to do so. --j⚛e deckertalk to me04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Joe, sorry I was a bit perturbed. Please accept my apologies. I have may an effort to undelete the article. I didn't see the article, well, cause I'm not in the habit of looking to see if it's deleted or being deleted. Thanks for the wordy but informative rant. $R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.178.2 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No hard feelings here at all, I see you've applied at WP:UNDELETE so someone really familiar with that button and the usual procedures there handle that. I'm serious, by the way, if I can be of help in the future, please let met know. Have a great week! --j⚛e deckertalk to me02:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
there is a request at WP:REFUND to restore an article which you deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adie Harris (footballer). Apparently he is now on a professional team. I don't think the editor is contesting the deletion discussion, they just want permission to restore the one article. If you could drop by the discussion and leave a note that would be great. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Joe, don't take this the wrong way but why not just remove the offending paragraph instead of reporting as a potential copyright violation? For most of these cases isn't it easier to just stubify it then add a source? J04n(talk page)23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
First, no bad feelings taken from it at all, I haven't worked many copyright violations and as a result, I've usually handed them over the wall rather than risk missing a step someone might think was important. It'd certainly be simpler for me to trash the offending paragraph and move on. Do you have any advice on when it is/isn't appropriate simply delete the offending material and move on? I should probably go read the relevant policy pages, but real-world advice would be appreciated as well. --j⚛e deckertalk to me23:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I never report them, I just strip them bare and rewrite a stub with ref(s). If it was fresh I'll drop a note on the user talk page explaining the situation but usually the editor copy/pastes something and is never heard from again. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on it so your change isn't reverted. J04n(talk page)23:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Your Sig
Hi there. While I am knowledgeable enough in Unicode to search for what the symbol in your sig is (either the atom symbol or a smiley face) I don't have the font to actually display it. What font does that character come from, as I'd like to get it. What I see now is "J[]e" (imagine that as a closed box). Yours is one of only a tiny number of unicodes in signatures that I cannot see. Sven ManguardWha?20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
That it was working in? I'm not 100% sure, since Chrome isn't giving me any help at identifying what it's using, but after spending a lot of time looking at the text vs. the various fonts in Font Book here, it appears that Chrome on my Mac is using what it believes to be Helvetica or possibly Arial. Seems to show here in many other fonts, too. Sorry I missed your question, that's what I get for answering on the run... :) --joe deckertalk to me21:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
why did you delete the SM Masinag Antipolo page ? Do you have evidence that it is not real ? Why dont you try to go to the place and see what's being FINALIZED THERE ? okay ? restore that one. I'm looking forward to it now.
-- i AM ROiDOKUN (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The article was proposed for deletion because it did not meet the following Wikipedia policy: WP:GNG. That policy states, in part If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.. It is not sufficient that the shopping mall exist for it to be included in Wikipedia, the nearest shopping mall to my home exists and there's not (nor should there be) a Wikipedia article on it. What is required is that multiple, reliable secondary sources (things like magazines, newspaper articles, and books) discuss it, and discuss it in some level of detail, not just mention it in passing.
Additionally, the policy WP:CRYSTAL may also apply to this article.
I'll inform the editor who proposed the article for deletion know that I've restored the article, and take a look myself. If I feel that the article does not meet the various Wikipedia policies, I'll send it to WP:AFD for a community discussion on the question.
I've also renamed the article from "SM City Antipolo" to "SM City Masinag" as what sources I can find now appear to generally use the latter name, and I've added a source to the article to demonstrate how that is done.
Please let me know that you understand this, or reply here if you have any questions about what this all means, I'll be glad to explain more. Have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me16:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat08:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
THANKS A LOT :)
Sorry, I've been to much pushy , I guess.
Thanks for restoring the page. That overwhelms. But If you think or
If you guys think that the article does not compose of the Wikipedia
policies and adequate resources.. Then, I'll be working on this. We'll just
have to wait for other online magazines and resources to publish about this mall.
Right now, It is being furbished for final design and indoor matters.
I'll take a picture of the construction if i have time to go to the site.
By the way, thanks for renaming it as SM Masinag, because our city will
have another SM Mall at the city proper, not at the Metro Manila spillover area
which is still part of Antipolo City.
Again, Thanks for restoring It! I will work on it now for changes. :) Good Day
No worries, it's frustrating to work on an article and to see that work lost, sometimes it's gotta be done, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating! Anyway, again, I'll take a look in a couple of days, the most important thing you can do to make sure an article like that sticks around is to add references to reliable, secondary sources (newspapers and books). If you say "I've seen it, it's there" that may convince me but it's not sufficient for our policies here, but if the local newspaper says it, it's more likely to be considered "reliable". Hope this helps! Have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me00:30, 4 March 2011 (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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi Joe. I have a question about Lucy layton... why would we want a redirect like that around? It appears to have been a simple typing error on the part of the creator, who attempted to fix it with a copy-paste move. I'm not complaining, I just want to better understand in case my CSD tagging was incorrect. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, your tagging was entirely appropriate. The A10 criteria talk about "except for a plausible redirect", and usually even simple typos are considered relatively plausible, but this wasn't a typo, it was just a capitalization difference. As near as I can tell it's not a big deal either way (redirects are very cheap), but there was absolutely nothing wrong with your tag there, the only thing potentially wrong was my putting in the redirect rather than deleting, and I believe I'll reverse myself on that basis, and go buy a trout to apply to myself. :) --joe deckertalk to me23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ha ha! OK, thanks for that explanation. CSD tagging is something I try to be very conservative about, as it can annoy page creators if done spuriously, so I like to double-check whenever a tag is declined or another CSD rationale is swapped in for the deletion. Thanks for the clarification! 28bytes (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Joe. I don't believe we have encountered each other before this. Say, I notice you accepted some changes to the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant article. You may want to review those, as there was an awkward ref embedded in the article in the 'Effect on employees and residents' section, and the edits include non Wikipedia formatting. That ref has since been pulled out. I was about to reject the edits when you accepted, but that might be a good thing, as with some work they could be a net plus. It's still a bit awkward, as the contributor seems quite green. I'll watchlist your talk page if you'd like to reply here. Thanks, Jusdafax22:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've totally seen you around. I know the edit you're speaking of. I did accept, in general I've followed the "not vandalism, not a BLP violation", accept methodology, it's been my hope to clean some of that up but it's been locked in an edit conflict. But it does need to be cleaned up, if you can get an edit in go for it, I'll also see what I can do. --joe deckertalk to me22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I see a few more PC requests just got dealt with on that article. I'm not a fan of PC in situations like this, where an article is a current event of intense interest and there are numerous changes flying in. I'm going to ask at WP:RPP for semiprotection, which may discourage a few IP editors, but will allow for more clarity in the process of building the article. At least, thats's how I see it. Thanks for the reply, it's good to communicate in situations like this. Best wishes, Jusdafax22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, no complaints here, I think the edit volume is a bit high here, perhaps, for PC, and the vandalism rate, I suspect, is too high for unprot. Best wishes! --joe deckertalk to me22:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and to you as well. I've put my request in at RPP and will notify the admin as well. Good fortunes to you, always, Jusdafax23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Update - admin HJ Mitchell has responded that he disagrees with my assessment. Fair enough, I respect HJ and will watch developments with interest. Jusdafax23:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
hi. could you please take a view on whether there should be a separate section on evacuations or whether info about evacuations should be dispersed through the text. Sorry, but it is quite urgent to settle this as lots of edits are running by while we argue about it. thanks. Sandpiper (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2011 (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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hey Joe, did you have a reason to believe that this person is alive other than someone putting a BLPprod on the page? I was going to change the tag but figured I would check with you first. Take care pal, J04n(talk page)13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really new in this Wikipedia article making and I was wondering what am I going to do so that the Charlie Puth article won't be deleted? What other sources/things are needed? Hoping you'd tell me so I could fix it before it gets removed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttersette (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! And welcome to Wikipedia, I'm sorry that your first experiences here have to do with an article getting deleted, our policies and procedures are pretty intimidating and confusing at times. The basic thing that people are looking for from the article is something we call "notability", and in particular, notability defined by the various guidelines and policies we have that try and objectively determine whether the subject of an article is notable enough for an article. The most important "notability guideline" here is WP:GNG, and it's probably worth spending a few minutes reading that, but I'll try and give you an overview.
The basic reason we have "notability" policies is this, when we have a Wikipedia article here we'd like to know that it's based on enough independent, reliable sources about the subject of the article that we can write a good article, and know that what we say in the article is accurate, verifiable, and neutral (e.g., isn't an attack on the person being described or advertising for them.) As a result, the WP:GNG requires that articles, particularly articles about living people, be backed by multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the person. Many of the things you might think would be considered reliable sources here at WP aren't, for example, a Wikipedia article by itself isn't a reliable source, IMDB isn't for the same reasons that MySpace pages, Facebook, YouTube, LJ aren't, for the most part those are self-published content. The most uncontroversial reliable sources are articles in newspapers and books. I'd check out that link, and the WP:SECONDARY part of that page as well, for a little more information on this.
To provide an example, I'm a photographer in real life, but if there were an article about me here (there isn't) I couldn't make use of my website, my Facebook page, my twitter or flickr pages, etc., to "demonstrate notability." But if there were profiles of me in a couple papers, more than just my name on a list of artists or something, but some real content about me, even a paragraph or two, well, that'd be something.
In addition to WP:GNG, there is another overlapping guideline called WP:MUSICBIO, which provides a list of ways in which, well, if you meet any of those criteria, and if that can be verified with reliable, independent sources, well then it's generally assumed that the article will pass as well. In the end, it's all about the "enough coverage that comes independently from reliable sources.", that's the key to keeping an article from deletion.
To find helpful sources, I'd start with Google News Archives [2] search (not just g, and Google Books search. You can do a broader Google Web search in addition, but in general blogs aren't going to be treated as reliable sources during the deletion discussion unless they are quite well-known (e.g., the blog of a Washington Post news reporter gets more credibility than my own blog.).
It's not always possible to find enough sources (no Wikiarticle for me!), and to be honest when I looked for sources myself I wasn't encouraged. But I hope you will take a look, and I'd love it if you found some sources that meet these stringent guidelines and added them. If I can answer any questions about the process, reply here and I'll be happy to answer what I can answer. Have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I perfectly understood why. I'm sorry. Thanks for being a nice editor. I didn't make that article. I just wanted Charlie Puth (a musician/Youtube vlogger) to have an article here just like Shane Dawson (another Youtube vlogger). Speaking of Shane Dawson, why is his article approved? That's probably going to be my last question. Hope it wouldn't be too much to ask, since you seem pretty busy checking other articles, here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttersette (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no worries, glad to help anyone who wants to help build the encyclopedia, and I can tell your heart is in the right place. I hadn't looked at Shane, articles on him had been deleted in 2008 and again in March 2010 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shane_Dawson_(2nd_nomination), but I suspect what really got his article to be able to return after its deletion in March 2010 was press coverage. But what really got his article to "stick" was, I'd guess, the New York Times [3] article the next month. The coverage at Forbes, G4 and Entertainment Weekly each would have probably been sufficient, too, or at least any two of those four. Now, I haven't read those references carefully, and I'd need to to give you a complete answer, but that set of coverage more than meets WP:GNG. --joe deckertalk to me17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh, in rereading that March 2010 discussion (and you'll notice it's argued out), one person wrote "If there was a New York Times profile on him like....", and what do you know, another month later there was. I guess the reason I mention this is that you may come across something about Charlie (if he does get deleted a month or two from now, or a year, and if that happens, let me know, we can always revisit it when new information comes in. --joe deckertalk to me17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a great question, I don't use that list in particular, but I can't speak for the other folks who are more focused on the mistagged list. Wish I could be of more help! --joe deckertalk to me01:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
*grin* ;-) You just found some sources (in Icelandic) I had missed, glad to see something not get undeservedly deleted at my hand, is all. --joe deckertalk to me14:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
BLPPROD
Hi Joe, I saw you declined the BLPPROD on Vasily Shevtsov. I was the person who tagged that article and at the time I did see there was an imdb reference, which as you said in your decline is not a reliable source. I've seen your work in relation to BLPs at WP:URBLP, so I assume that you are correct. However, on the WP:BLPPROD page, in the objecting section, "to be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the {{prod blp}} until the biography has at least one such source" (my underlining). So, I'm a little confused. Could you please point me to where it says that an article can't be deleted under BLPPROD when it only contains an unreliable source(s). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sure! The actual policy is really quirky, so let me first tell you what it says (I think!), and then point you at where that's ben discussed. BLPPROD differentiates the conditions under which a BLPPROD can be placed from the conditions under which it can be removed when sources are added after a placement. I realize that sounds a little crazy, but that's the current status.
You can pick up some of how that's all come together in reading through reading this part of the archives. See in particular WereSpielChequers' comment at 11:12. Once that all comes together, it's easier to read the actual BLPPROD page in a way coherent with that.
Let me be clear about one thing, I totally understand why this isn't clear to folks, and hey, no harm done. And in fact, I'll start looking at clarifying the BLPPROD page in response to this.
By the way, it's my hope that we'll eventually migrate to a more coherent process, but I suspect that the first thing that will have to happen is for us to clear the unreferenced BLP backlog. There was an enormous "fear" put into many editors at the time the unreferenced BLP efforts started by threats to summarily delete the then-60,000 or so entirely unreferenced biography articles. No matter your feelings on that, this fear was, I believe, at the heart of the weakness of the placement critiera for BLPPROD, and I think it'll be easier to gain consensus for slightly tougher BLPPROD restrictions when there isn't a concern of it being applied to an overhwelmingly large backlog all at once. --joe deckertalk to me00:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response and the link to the discussion. I think I understand BLPPROD much better now and I realise that (I think) I shouldn't have tagged it for BLPPROD in the first place as there was a link to a source (just not a reliable one) in the article. The BLPPROD system is a bit strange as it sits at the moment and I would support it getting a bit tougher as well, but I suppose that's neither here nor there at the moment. Anyway, thanks again for the detailed response. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, and again, no points off your score for being thrown by this. If you check the BLPPROD talk page, you'll see I've suggested an addition to the policy page on this point, it really isn't clear right now, and I see a lot of folks being quite understandably confused by it. If you have suggestions on the wording, they'd be welcome. --joe deckertalk to me01:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone is agreed that the process is in need of improvement. However, at present, IMdB is sufficiently reliable for verification to meet the standards of BLP prod The evidence for that is that we have a specific templated designed expressly to suit this situation {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}, which reads "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. It includes attribution to IMDb, which may not be a reliable source for biographical information. Please help by adding additional, reliable sources for verification. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."
I've applied the template to the article.
But when the assertions in the article when sourced do not amount to actual notability, there's a good case for using ordinary PROD--it's just necessary to check if it gets removed without good reason, so it can be taken to AfD. (if the assertions don't show anything of any possible importance, of course Speedy A7 is the right process; I've seen BLP PROD used a good deal wghen speedy would have been very applicable and much simpler. . DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes I agree with most of what you've said. The article in question obviously wasn't a candidate for A7 and after a look at the gnews archive it's pretty easy to verify that he was indeed in the film in question. I've added two refs to the article. They aren't significant coverage, but are obviously enough to remove the BLP IMDB template. Personally I think the BLP IMDB template is a bit pointless, as a reference to an unreliable source is little better (if at all) than no references at all. I remember a discussion at WT:URBLP where an editor was chastised for the mass changing of unreferenced BLP tags to BLP IMDB refimprove Also, Joe, I've replied to your suggestion at WT:BLPPROD. Oh, and in relation to taking the article to AfD (I would prefer not to, to be honest) do either you know if a lot of minor mentions in reliable sources amount to significant coverage? Jenks24 (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
To the last question: the rules lawyer in me would say no, but the real answer is (and should be, at least in the extreme) 'sometimes." Lemme go take a look. --joe deckertalk to me14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, yeah, I agree, I wouldn't send that to AfD with what I know either. Yep, the article does not demonstrate meeting WP:GNG, but....
The language issues here play two ways to my thinking. First, in sourcing an article like this, it's a lot more likely I've missed reliable sources because of language issues, I don't know if you speak Russian (I don't). I was able to figure out his name in Russian is apparently Василий Шевцов, and Gnews/Gbooks have some hits for that, some but not all of which are relevant, but I haven't looked through them all, just a couple.
Second, that the film got some coverage in both English and Russian news sources makes me think the film is a bit more notable, which proves nothing but weights my impression the probability of the actors notability.
There are a lot of cases where the answer to "is this notable?" is really more "I'm not really sure" than yes or no. If there's a BLP/NPOV issue relating to sourcing that can't be removed without taking out the whole article, or if the information can't be reliably verified at all, well, yeah, that's heading to deletion, but in cases like this, I'm more likely to leave it, or leave it and tag-for-notability. --joe deckertalk to me15:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one other option here--if I were leaning deletion, in a case like this, where it appears there's only one film involved and not much more we can say, it'd be better to redirect to the film than fully delete. --joe deckertalk to me15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't really feel comfortable sending an article like this to AfD either. What your saying makes a lot of sense and I'm thinking that if there are so many sources out there, at least one of them will have significant coverage (probably in Russian which I don't speak either). Thanks for the suggestions and help, I think there's no need to redirect it at the moment (it seems to be a valid enough stub and, as you said, there's no BLP/NPOV issue) and I'll just leave it for the moment to see if it gets built upon by someone else. Hopefully someone with more expertise than me about Russian actors will stumble onto this article. Thanks for all your help, Jenks24 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Joe - was disappointed to see you took down the page about my political work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A_Paquin_III
I also noticed you followed speedy deletion criteria, however my page doesnt even come close into falling under those guidelines. Lets go ahead and have you restore the page, and please follow correct protocol if you want to delete it (I cant imagine why - just another whiny democrat?)
Done The deletion log for Robert_A_Paquin_III states "Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable politician. Lost a city council ward election, and owner of nn consultancy firm; none of the sources provided are independent and reliable, or even discuss him in any detail, and I can't find any reliable." This was a proposed deletion, not a speedy deletion, and the concern expressed there was the concern raised by the nominator seven days earlier. You may have been confused by the deletion note at the Talk page, however--talk pages of any deleted article are deleted as speedy G8, which can be confusing when the article was deleted under a different deletion process.
As a contested proposed deletion, I've restored the article on request, had I not been available, you could have had the request honored at WP:REFUND.
The nominator's concern is somewhat based in Wikipedia policy. None of the numerous sources you provide, as near as I can tell, meets the requirement of the general notability guideline, an article I'd suggest you read, which states that to demonstrate notability, are both secondary (e.g., not written by you), independent (not written by someone affiliated with you, but instead something written by a mainstream news source and which also provides significant (not just passing) coverage. WP:POLITICIAN might also be helpful. I would recommend including references and in-line citations from newspapers, magazines and/or books which provide in-depth coverage of you. I will notify the nominating author that I've restored the article, that editor may or may not choose to follow up with attempting to delete the article via a discussion at Articles for Deletion.
You should also be aware that it is strongly recommended, but not required, that you do not write about yourself on Wikipedia, and that your continuing to do so will be likely cause your article to receive greater scrutiny than it might otherwise.
PS: Another editor has sent this article to Articles for Deletion. You can see the discussion here. Be aware that the discussion is a discussion rather than a vote. The discussion will usually be closed (that is, the final outcome will be determined) in seven days, based on the policy and sourcing issues raised. --joe deckertalk to me20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you really want to keep this? It is not worth debate in my view - it is un notable but hey - you are an admin - you know better than me. It can't be prodded again so now it will exist - as driftwood - bad for wikipediaMarkDask18:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, notability is defined by GNG in terms of coverage in sources, Gnews archives seemed to have some stuff, and in general a lot of title-winning beauty queens seem to end up in the keep column in my experience after AfD discussions. In terms of whether this is better off kept than deleted, that's for the community as a whole to decide, not myself, I just decline PRODs when I think there's a significant likelihood (say, greater than 30%) that an AfD would return keep, which I believe to be the case here. Whether I think it should, well, that's a separate question, and not really relevant here. I try (as much as anyone can) not to put my personal preferences into stuff like this, when things are going to be argued, it's my experience that it's better to bite the bullet and take it to AfD in the end, since the PROD always *will* end up contested, if not by someone like me, by the author a few days or weeks later, followed by WP:REFUND, followed by the inevitable AfD. Simpler to get the AfD out of the way early, get a decision that will stick either way, and get on with my life. :) --joe deckertalk to me20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Awarded for outstanding, dogged, tireless, relentless additions of sourcing to unreferenced biographies of living people. Your work is simply awesome! Whpq (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You should have a chest full of these for your UBLP work (June 2009 in particular). Your constancy and persistence in this largely thankless task is admirable.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone expected you to follow up on this, especially given the time and effort you already expend on referencing. Are you like this in real life too? I put a real life "Joe Decker" in the same league as unicorns and fairies - fanciful to imagine but too good to be true ;) --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots19:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I just peeked at you user page (expecting to see a bunch of pictures of cute puppies and kittens) and your clock infobox says 11:44am - have you adjusted for DST? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I only noticed because I had also forgotten to update mine. And yes, you need some kitten and puppy pics to match your friendly persona. Well, I'm off to print off some WWJDD ("What would Joe Decker Do?") T-shirts. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, if you do add kitten images to your userpage, make sure you take them yourself, because Holy Hannah Joe, you're mighty talented with a lens. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*grin* It was exciting to see a newer user actually interested in adding good references to an article, maybe I've been staring at URBLPs too long! *grin* --joe deckertalk to me14:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Joe
I see that you deleted my page - Alison Norrington - and I have no idea why! Any info that you could give would be most appreciated please.
Kind regards
Alison. Alisonnorrington (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Allison,
Thanks for dropping me a line. There are a couple answers, so let me go through them, and after I do I can tell you about your options in terms of getting the article back or writing a new one. There may be a bit to assimilate here, so don't hesitate to ask if I can help explain anything here.
A bit over a week ago, another user proposed the deletion of your page, using the proposed deletion process. That process is intended for uncontroversial deletions by policy, and the rationale provided by the user at the time was "Non-notable, self-promotional." The first two words are shorthand and might've been better stated as "the article doesn't appear to meet our general notability guideline."
In the process, the article sits for seven days marked for deletion, and if nobody objects, on the seventh day, the article is deleted, and yep, I'm the guy who did that. Based on what I saw in the article, I didn't see that the article showed substantial coverage of you in reliable, secondary sources as is necessary to meet the notability criteria.
Now, usually, with proposed deletions, we just undelete them if someone asks--they may go to another deletion process in that case, and end up being discussed, but usually undeletion is just automatic. I'm afraid I can't immediately do that in this case, however. When I checked out your article, I saw that you had reused text you've used elsewhere, e.g., [4], which puts us in a fragile situation with respect to copyright--we don't know for certain (as Wikipedia) that the "you" who put this text into Wikipedia is actually owns the copyrighted text that seems to exist elsewhere. Check out the "Content that violates" stuff, and the "irreocably agree to release" stuff below the edit box, you giving us copyrighted text here puts us in a bind. There is a process you can go through (see [5]) for us to use and reuse your words, but I don't recommend it in this case, it's a bit of work, and it's not necessary if all you want to do is to recreate a new article.
Far easier, most likely, is for you to recreate an article without using copyrighted text. In general, we strongly discourage (but do not prohibit) people from writing about themselves, it is very difficult to do so neutrally, and editors are fairly reactive about people using our encyclopedia as a platform for advertising themselves. But it is allowed, so long as you try and carefully honor the WP:NPOV policies, avoid promotional language, and demonstrate that the statements in the article are documented by coverage from reliable, secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage of you, generally newspapers articles, books, and so on. With respect to "promotional language", try and imagine what you'd find if you looked up one of your colleagues in a conventional encyclopedia, rather than looking at their CV, lecture advert, or faculty web page.
Wow, sorry to make things so difficult, I realize I've dumped nearly half our policy book on you here, and I'm sure it comes off more badly than I intend, I do realize a lot of our processes here are confusing and opaque. Do let me know if I can answer any further questions! All the best, --joe deckertalk to me22:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Number of watchers
When you click the Edit History tab of a page, there is a section where you can see the "number of watchers" that the page has (i.e., the number of users who have listed that page on their Watch List). Is there any way to see who those actual users are (watching the page), as opposed to just how many users there are (watching that page)? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC))
No, there's not, and that's intentional--in fact, you won't even get a count if the count is less than 30, try my user page for an example. This has to do both with protecting people's privacy and with not telegraphing which articles are easier targets for vandalism, as I understand it. --joe deckertalk to me00:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, what happened was this. I accidentally hit that tab on my user Talk Page. As it was "processing" (slight time delay), I thought to myself "geez, I am sure that no one would put my Talk Page on their Watch List". Then, I was shocked when there were actually 40 people who were watching my Talk Page. I was very surprised, and I wondered who on earth would be -- or would even want to be -- watching my Talk Page. That was what prompted me to ask that question. Yes, indeed, it would be interesting to know! Thanks again. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
A lot of folks who do are probably people who've edited your web page, there's a setting (that I have on, in fact) that automatically watches any page that I've edited. I clear 'em out now and them, but I'm guessing that might be where your watchers came from, in large part. --joe deckertalk to me21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I backed into this one while working on files: Ian Zachary Whittingham. There are quite a few claims that appear to be peacocks and have no sources. Not much in the way of any RS. I tagged it for ad and for SD-notability; should this have been a PROD instead? Thanks! We hope (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, while I'm probably not the most accurate speedy-tagger around (I tend to work on old articles, which are rarely candidates for speedy), I'm pretty sure that a PROD would have been better in that case, in general, we'd rather see A7s used very narrowly, and a source (and there's one or two in the text, I think) is usually seen as a sort of inherent claim of notability, even when the sources are weak, as those surely are. I wouldn't bother reopening Ian at this point, I don't think there's any real chance he would have survived the deletion process, but yeah, I'd go with PROD in the future in cases like that. And when I'm uncertain, I err on the side of slower process *except* where there's harmful negative material.
If you want a second opinion or further color on the right boundaries for A7s, User:WereSpielChequers has thought about A7s (and CSDs in general) quite a bit and shares my basically narrow interpretation of A7, but with a lot more practical experience... (Honestly, if I ever get the WP:URBLPR backlog cleared, I may ask him for a bit of tutoring on the finer points of speedies myself.) --joe deckertalk to me16:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Will go with PROD in future for cases like this one even though I see the article's been deleted. I need to get back to working on the BLPs; had a string of "bad luck" for a while where everything I clicked wound up as copyvios once I started working to ref them. Thanks for the advice! We hope (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, those take a bit of time. I'm starting to get the hang of those, and would like to learn more about processing copyvios, so if you get really stuck on one feel free to toss it over the fence my way. --joe deckertalk to me17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Next one will be all yours! :) If the problem isn't too awful, I'll remove that section with a note re: what it was, but for a while, almost everything I started turned out to be copy and paste from various sites. :( We hope (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right about the copypaste, and I should have had that in mind. I'll apply a trout to myself for that. Okay, so if I have this right, I should just move the new article (currently at Neoglyphea) over the Laurent.... redirect, because I can do that. The latter has essentially no history. Let me know how badly I've mucked this up. :) --joe deckertalk to me14:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and it looks like there's a question about whether that's correct from another editor. I'll let you guys figure it out, but let me know if I can help put things aright if they need put arightin' --joe deckertalk to me05:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The "another editor" you are referring to is no no less than Stemonitis, your fellow admin, and en.wikipedia.org's preeminent stern arbiter of all things biological. I'll have a quiet word about all the above with Stemonitis... once I pluck up the courage to so do, that is :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I checked out the deleted version, I can't claim it's "substantially identical" (there's some slightly different refs, etc), I think, unless I'm missing something obvious, that this has to go back to AfD. This time, let's have salt on that. --joe deckertalk to me23:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. Mewse was deleted before I could add my comment to the discussion. I have added it anyway as I believe there is another issue that may need to be addressed. Could you take a look please? Thanks - [6]Acabashi (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you just deleted a page I suggested for a delete (Michael Chekhov Studio London). Could you please do likewise for the other one that I tagged at about the same time, which is of the same type? - Non-fictional character - Is there a page where I could request this for pages with a 7-day lapse to a general audience? Many thanks, • DP • {huh?}18:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I got Non-fictional Character, plus the six (!) redirects that went to it. There's about a 100-article backlog in processing expired proposed deletions right now, I'd gotten the one but not the other because I prioritize articles that look like they might be BLPs. I don't know of a general place to request "hurry up on that PROD backlog", but usually it doesn't get more than a day or two behind. If there is an urgent reason to expedite a particular proposed deletion, though (BLP/libel issues, attack), probably best to poke someone directly, you're welcome to contact me here or email me (there should be a link when you visit my user page in the left sidebar). --joe deckertalk to me19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Why exactly was the square logic page deleted? I missed the talk page, but I am extremely intrigued why the content was flagged as a hoax, and deleted as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.8.90 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The summary reason given for that proposed deletion was a bit short, the discussion among multiple editors suggested a belief that the article was a neologism, a hoax, and/or an attack. The discussion was a bit longer, but that's a slightly fuller summary of the argument. As a proposed deletion the article can and will be restored on request if you feel that that was in error, just ask here (or if I'm not around you can also make a request at WP:REFUND.) That won't save it from being deleted by another slower process, however, unless the concept of 'square logic' can be shown to have in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources--something the editors on the Talk page appear to have believed unlikely at the time. --joe deckertalk to me17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright vio-it's me
Promised you the next one, but had no idea it would directly involve me: Introducing Jo Stafford. VW Bot began tagging 4/24 and have seen other editors with new music pages get tagged also. Won't be working on anything until this is resolved. Can't find another way to list the music on an album or CD without using the list that's on the media. It takes an instant for a bot to make this inference, but who knows how long to get one's name cleared. We hope (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Have just been cleared, but it looks to me like these false positives are going to upset/offend a lot of editors. We hope (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the bot having trouble figuring that out, but.... I wouldn't feel too bad about making new pages just b/c they might get tagged with false positives, by the way, nobody is going to hold the 'bots errors against ya. --joe deckertalk to me14:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks for making the quick correction on Wilson's page. I was just trying to get rid of the extra quotation makres -- didn't mean to clip the E. Kdammers (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
the template message says 'if you can address this concern..' but it doesn't say what the concern is. The article is just a stub-by one, it can be added to, it is not in desperate need of deletion I don't think, it just says Gaucher is a leading authority on Therese of Lisieux and adds a litle biographical info - its very insubstantial I agree,is that the concern? but I don't see it is particularly crying out to be deleted. what is the concern exactly? Sayerslle (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I put the wrong template there. The concern is that the article is unsourced. I'll correct the tag, and restart the clock, my bad. --joe deckertalk to me15:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've redirected this back to BBC Sport as she's definitely not notable enough for her own article, but it could be a useful redirect. She does present quite a lot of sports updates, etc, on both BBC television and radio. The page is now on my watchlist so I can catch any further attempts to recreate it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
More than being unhappy about the result (which I guess I am) I just want to get a hold of the discussion that took place on the deleted page. The overall process confused me utterly at the start. Apparently I was never notified about the Afd (whatever that is) and was holding the discussion with user:OpenFuture on the discussion page of the deleted article. When the article was deleted, by you (rightly so, since the discussion page for the dletion process was unanimously agianst me (I later found out). But then I was still discussing it with Openfuture on the oriinal talk page and didn't know anything about the deletion vote that was goin on, so I was unable to make any arguments against it there.
Anyway, I don't want to reopen th discussion or re-instate the article. My experience with it has been too humiliating. I tried to reinstate the article several times, but, as I said on the talk page of those attempted reinstatements (which no one apparently read) , I was only trying to get to the discussion page for Ideal wealth distribution. I inadvertently thought that the discussion for the deletion reasons were on thetalk page fo rthe article. I did not know that there was discussion going on on the deletion page. The whole process is a bureaucratic nightmare for a novice and I hav enot gone through it before. So I was simply trying to reinstate that page. Then I discovered I could actually protest the deletion, whoopee!! and os I tried that; but NOW that still makes no sense to m since there is still no discussion. sO, AS i SAID, i JUST WANT TO DroP IT. However I would like to get back to the discussion I had with opnfuture so I can understand this process a bit better; and because of the ignorance of his comments in case there is a next occasion.
My complaint with openfuture is that he and I were having a discussion adn yet he saw that our discussion was on an irrlevant page that was going to get deleted and woudl not affect any one else's decision. He could have pointed this out o me with a small amount of courtesy, but he gleefully insulted my ability as a psychologist nd ALL psychologists in connection with economics. He seems to be ignorant of the wide spread praise for behavioral economists or behavioral finance researchers such as Daniel Kahneman ( a psychologist) who won the nobel prize in economics. I would like to have that discussion in case he pursues this issue into other irrelevant areas. In my opinion OpenFuture was nasty in his reckless dismissal of psychologissts. If you look at my user space, you will see that that is all there is on it, and he did look at that and then made some (to my mind) deliberately abusive comments. Actually he seems not to understand the difference between pushing a POV and talking about it; or somehting like that; since I really can't understand his POV (especially about psychologists!)
Anyway, I do want to get and keep his commentary but I hav e no interest in pursuing the ideal wealth distribution article in the face of such uninformed hostility. So If you can, please delete it but please help me get the commentary back for the record. By the way, someone else joined the discussion there modestly supporting my position, but I cannot remember who - perhaps PAR (user gogo dodo or something like that affirmed it was user:PAR so I guess he can somehow look at the deleted page's discussion section even though I don't know how). None of this showed up on the crucial deletion page, of course, so it didn't affect the discussion. I am vain enough to think that someone might have been persuaded if I had been able to get to that page.but that it water undre the bridge now -- I just wan tthe discusssion.... Thanks. Imersion (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Imersion. I can definitely go look at the Talk page involved and, if you like, email the contents. If you go to my User page there should be a link on the right to email me, or (perhaps preferably to you) you can enable anonymized email (see My Preferences -> User Profile near the bottom), and I can send it to you through that. I have not looked through the discussion with the other user involved, but I hear that you are upset about the way things occurred. Our deletion processes here at Wikipedia are frustrating and confusing, I've even started an essay on making sense of it to people who come to me after having their article deleted...
I have not yet gone and reread that discussion, I'm out of town for the evening, but if you would like me to go through it and have discussion about the arguments presented and how they fit or don't fit into Wikipedia policy from my own point of view, I'm happy to do so--only if you think it'd be valuable. --joe deckertalk to me23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. All I want is the discussion content itself from the deleted page. I'm going to mull this over and then post tot he POV discussion. I think that POV is much too complicated an issue to try to del with it in the hip, flip context of a POV. It deals with value judgments and having confronted ignorant students for decades trying to teach them what valu judgments are, I have a good sense of how diffiuclt it can be. The issue needs some more thought in Wiki. PS I don't want to deal with anonymized mail, so there must be another way. All I want are his statements about Ideal wealth as a POV and his rant about psychologists being unable to deal competently with surveys (hah!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that your goal is to start a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. That noticeboard is for the discussion of articles that exist, and perhaps (just perhaps) articles that might exist but don't, but certainly not articles that don't exist and that nobody is going to work on. You've said you have no interest in trying to get that article restored. If I have understood your reply above correctly, then I must withdraw my offer to retrieve/email the Talk page for you. Doing so would only prolong a content dispute beyond the life of the content being disputed, to no constructive end.
Allow me to offer some alternatives:
The editor you mentioned who did provide some support for the article idea (if not the implementation)? I think you are referring to User:PAR. One constructive way you might work towards getting an article like IWD back is to work with an editor like PAR, or maybe someone else from WikiProject Economics, who has a better understanding of the lingo and nuance of Wikipedia policy. Work together to produce a userspace draft that shows to other editors what your previous article apparently did not, that the topic can be communicated with a neutral point of view and so on. *Then* take that to DRV.
While it was unfortunate and concerning that you were not notified of the deletion discussion, such notification is not required by policy. As a result, I decline to relist the article at AfD (that is, have a "do over" on the deletion discussion.) However, I will bear absolutely no ill will if you go to deletion review and ask them to consider overturning my decision there.
However, as I understand things right now, I'm guessing that you don't wish to pursue either option. I empathize, this has no doubt been frustrating. If that's the case, however, my best advice is to let it go and walk away. I have found that when I have been upset about the way things have gone with a particular Wikipedia article, that that is often my own best response, as frustrating as it may be.
Thnaks, that is all pretty good, but your advice is off the mark. My interest is in improving NPOV, not going after the this article. I suspect that this is a very general problem with social science concepts and with the fundamental cocnept of value judgments in Wiki. Anyway, I liek real examples and this is a good one; so I don't want to continue the dispute; just use this example, and I am even happy to anonymize it without reference to the user involved. However, it was a public discussion, so I see no reason why I should not have access to he content. SDo please post it. Imersion (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No. The matter is, as far as I'm concerned, closed. You are welcome to appeal this elsewhere. I believe my concerns are stated clearly above. --joe deckertalk to me22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok I want to appeal this. I think your decision is narrow, unfriendly and hostile. Where , to whom, and how do I appeal? If you were truly helpful, instead of giving me the gratutitous advice above, you would have provided this information. You already know hownfamiliar I am with these procedures. Are you an admin? How did you get to be one? What qualifications do you have to be one? What special powers do you have? Could you block me if you wante to? How would that work? Imersion (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I'd ask you to see this from my perspective. I haven't seen you explain how you'd use the Talk page for any constructive purpose, and that sincerely concerns me. I haven't seen, and perhaps you can enlighten me, how the talk page (which I've reviewed) for ideal wealth distribution is useful for improving the neutrality of the ideal wealth distribution article *if that latter article is going to stay deleted*. I am concerned, instead, about its potential for it simply reigniting a fight ... a fight that isn't going to lead to a better Wikipedia article. Where's the value to Wikipedia in that?
To appeal this decision and to ask for the undeletion of the Talk page, make a request at WP:DRV, following the instructions there. Let me know if you have any questions about those instructions, I'll be glad to help.
To answer your other questions: Yes, I'm an admin, that's required for being able to undelete files.The procedure for becoming an admin is essentially gaining a process of seeing if there's consensus around 70-80% of participating editors to become one. There are more details on the process at WP:RFA, although that page doesn't really do much to give you a sense of the sort of requirements most of the community seems to require before giving their support, I can point you at some other pages if you'd like additional information on the topic.
Administrative tools are most cleanly listed at WP:New_admin_school, and do include blocking, but if you're worried about that being on my mind with respect to this discussion so far, don't be, that would be an inappropriate and excessive use of tools on my part for this simple disagreement. The few folks I've blocked have either been harassing other editors, engaging in wholesale vandalism to the encyclopedia, etc., and only then when there was no gentler way of addressing the issue.
When I adopt your POV I see someone who was willing to send me a public discussion page that should be available unde any interpretation of FOI, but when I refused to give you my email, you suddenly wanted more information. ??? Do I really need to explain why I want something that was a public discussion? Are you my mother? Anyway, Idid ofer an explanation. I'm going to use it to mull things over, talk others and hopefully improve NPOV. Happy mother's day. Imersion (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{wp:drv]] is a mess. Really disorganized. Any newbie approaching his will have heart failure. What are the templates for? Someone threw them in without any explanation at all. There is no index. Underlines the silliness of the WIKI policy of keping pages too long. Should be broken up into smaller pages, an argument Ben Shneiderman made long ago about hypertext, and seems ot have lost because of everyone's disorgnized habits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems incrediblhybureaucratic to have to ask for a DRV just to get a copy of the discussion page! ==Deletion review for Ideal wealth distribution==
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ideal wealth distribution. 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. Imersion (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I added a link there to this discussion, supported your statement that you'd not been notified of the original AfD, and otherwise plan to let things take their course without further interference. I wish you the best of luck. --joe deckertalk to me02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
