User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 23

Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Mark Anthony King Basketball Deletion

I'd like to understand why you singled out and deleted Mark King, a former minor league professional basketball player and Owner of both the Florida Flight (Orlando, FL pro basketball team) and the Florida Basketball Association. FYI - He was a part of the record-setting team (East Kentucky Miners - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Kentucky_Miners) that scored 194 points in a game, the most points ever scored by a member team certified by USA Basketball and FIBA.

King's story is quite inspirational, and he's continued a path towards even more noteriety, guest speaking and lecturing all over the state of Florida, at many middle schools and high schools, as well as guest lecturing for University of Central Florida's DeVos Sports Management School. He's had television interviews as both a player and Owner of the Flight, and had premium media coverage, from Power 95.3, a top 40 radio station in Orlando, the Orlando Sentinel, the Osceola Gazette, Florida Sun, Insight Magazine, etc. He's even been on television with Rick Fox for the recently cancelled A&E Show, The Glades (the entire Florida Flight team was featured).

King's Flight team has played two recent games at the Amway Center (Home of the NBA's Orlando Magic), and they have 2 more games coming as well. They've been operating for going on 6 years, and have played close to 100 games. They've had digital billboards in Orlando, been on 3 different radio station interviews, and had a ton of news coverage.

There are other Florida teams that have barely played a game, and for some reason, the Florida Flight has been deleted when other teams remain that have barely played more than a couple of games. It seems as though there is some sort of vendetta against him and his efforts. And yes, I DO know him, so I am in the know on more things then are published. However, here is just a small portion of references supporting all that I have just stated:

Consider this a request to assist with reinstating the Mark King basketball page, the Florida Flight page, and the pages that have also been deleted for the Florida Basketball Association, which is Commissioned by 2-time NBA Champion Greg Kite (Boston Celtics). It should also be noted that the FBA also features the development team (Miami Midnites) for a mega power house international team, Maccabi Haifa, who has also played 7 NBA teams in the last 2 years of pre-season NBA action.

Mark King continues to become more notable in Orlando and within the entire minor league basketball industry. The FBA is the only minor league outside of the NBA D-League to play 100% of their scheduled games for their entire existence (going on 4 years now). This vendetta should be thwarted. This person is clearly notable enough to be featured on here.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Floking5 (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-27/news/os-darryl-owens-column-basketball-hopeful20100227_1_hoops-dream-college-basketball-mark-king http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6154%3Aflorida-flight-to-play-at-civic-center&Itemid=181 http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6716%3Aflight-pulls-out-of-wba-ending-basketball-season&Itemid=181 https://www.facebook.com/TGWritersOffice/photos/a.487667997949070.1073741831.480231305359406/490430757672794/ http://www.prweb.com/releases/Florida-Flight/Holiday-Toy-Drive/prweb11419293.htm http://www.insighteastorlando.com/rollingfeatured/florida-flight-soars-beyond-basketball-in-avalon-community/ http://www.insighteastorlando.com/featured/taking-flight-in-avalon/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floking5 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOGAtibWvqI
  2. ^ http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-27/news/os-darryl-owens-column-basketball-hopeful20100227_1_hoops-dream-college-basketball-mark-king
  3. ^ http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6154%3Aflorida-flight-to-play-at-civic-center&Itemid=181
  4. ^ http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6716%3Aflight-pulls-out-of-wba-ending-basketball-season&Itemid=181
  5. ^ https://www.facebook.com/TGWritersOffice/photos/a.487667997949070.1073741831.480231305359406/490430757672794/
  6. ^ http://www.prweb.com/releases/Florida-Flight/Holiday-Toy-Drive/prweb11419293.htm
  7. ^ http://www.insighteastorlando.com/rollingfeatured/florida-flight-soars-beyond-basketball-in-avalon-community/
  8. ^ http://www.insighteastorlando.com/featured/taking-flight-in-avalon/
It looks like you are talking about an article that I deleted after I assessed the consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Anthony King, which was unanimous. I didn't select the article for deletion nor participate in the discussion, I merely judged the result.
It appears you've engaged Peridon to look at the article, and that's great. You really need to read and understand our notability guidlines, such as WP:BASIC, that will help a lot. Your assumption that facebook pages and pr pieces (hint: PRWEB is a giveaway) prove anything about what we consider notability is mistaken.
Please see WP:External links/Perennial websites for more information on why social media sites, IMDB, YouTube and/or Find-a-Grave are not generally considered reliable secondary sources, which are usually considered essential.
As he meets none of the criteria, I think, at WP:WPBB/N, he'd have to show that he meets the general notability guideline for biographies, which is at WP:BASIC. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 07:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e deckertalk 04:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I followed your view on the signpost. There is one case that I came across where an editor has created the article in mainspace after waiting for review for some days. The draft got rejected based on his own article in mainspace. Draft and Article for your ready reference. Such cases can add to the backlog and can also question the need for AfC process. AfC process consumes quality manhours of experienced reviewers. Just my view. Yndesai (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN versus WP:SOLDIER?

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Ross (British Army officer) as delete. Were you aware that User:PatGallacher is citing this AFD closure as if it proved the whole wikipedia project had decided that the position of Lord Lieutenant never conferred notability? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald MacLaren of MacLaren.

I left some of my concerns with their arguments at User talk:PatGallacher#Your assistance please.... Among my concerns were that they argued as if WP:SOLDIER trumped WP:POLITICIAN, even though WP:POLITICIAN is part of an official notability guideline, while WP:SOLDIER is merely an essay.

I'd like to look at this article. I request (temporary) userification -- talk page too please. Geo Swan (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In your inbox, I'm dealing with quite a bit of real life distraction at the moment, sorry for the delay. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait, you said userfication, hold on. Sure thing. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Geo Swan/Donald Ross (British Army officer) and talk. I'll get back to you in a handful of days to see if this is settled. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the userification. I found some additional references -- but so far insufficient, in my opinion to establish GNG notability.
If I found sufficient good references my understanding of policy is that a significantly updated article could replace the deleted version, on my sole judgment, and it would not qualify for speedy deletion as the recreation of deleted material.
However, if you like, if I think I found those good references, I'll seek your opinion first, prior to a return to article space.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm cool with leaving it userfied for the moment, and if you want to run it by me if/when you find more, that's great, but if I'm away for amore than a while, don't wait on my account. G4 is intended to draw a line between wastefully rearguing on one hand, and not getting in the way of good-faith contributions in the other, and I am sometimes away from internet access for up to a couple weeks at a time due to my work. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please consider undeleting this article

Hi. I feel as if the page that you deleted has been done so unfairly and without a sufficient, conclusive consensus on the articles for deletion suggestions page.

The page in question is Troll Station (YouTube Channel).

Additionally, new evidence has come to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfilmsuk (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you tell me what that new evidence is? --j⚛e deckertalk 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. A common reason supporting the article's deletion was that the channel had only limited newspaper coverage. This has turned out to be untrue, but Troll Station's "notability" has vastly increased after a BBC News Report about Troll Station , the link of which I can give to you if you like.. It also shows that the channel is definitely on the rise, and while I feel it is currently notable enough to remain an article, this status will only increase very quickly.Edfilmsuk (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A link would be helpful, yes. [1] produces nothing. I know you feel that the close was unclear (you said so), you are welcome to appeal my decision to WP:DRV. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, here's the link - Troll Station BBC News report. As a side note, I don't really have time to go through the process of a deletion review, and would only consider it as a last resort. Please undelete this article. In any event, the abruptness at which you deleted it did not allow a concrete consensus to form, and of course, as you'd expect, my opinion hasn't changed. The article should truly be left alone if reinstated. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your efforts in providing and perhaps uploading that clip.. Based on my experience, I do not feel that that source by itself would likely to have changed the result of the discussion. As a result, I will not undelete the article at this time.
It is surprising to me that you describe the result of a discussion which lasted for a few hours short of three weeks "abrupt.", I'm afraid I must differ.
In terms of whether or not the article should be changed if it is undeleted, well, that is your position, but one deeply at odds with the spirit of Wikipedia. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "The article should be left alone if reinstated."
In any case, since I'm saying "no", it is time that I tell you what your options are.
Your best option is to appeal. Deletion review and instructions for appealing there are at WP:DRV.
You could also try and simply recreate the article, but I suspect the article would be truly abruptly deleted in that case. Perhaps not. However, the DRV option has the benefit of giving you a better precedent for the article remaining on Wikipedia if you succeed there, it really is your best next option.
Best of luck! Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Forbidden Room draft

Hi -- thanks for your comments re: citations for the draft page for Guy Maddin's new film, "The Forbidden Room." I added a citation to the apparently new studio site for the film, which also features cast and crew info. I have seen a preview copy of the film (I am a film critic) and the IMDB page cast and crew listing seems to match the actual screen credits. Since the film is not being released until later this month, at Sundance, I'm not sure what a better way to source the credits might be, other than citing IMDB and now also the studio page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGBall (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. First, my apologies for the delay in responding, I was away on business. Generally what we need to see is a couple of articles from organizations with an editorial process, think newspapers, magazines, and books, for an upcoming film, generally it'd be newspaper articles, magazine articles and the like, but some on-line sources meet these criteria as well. It turns out that our film WikiProject has a good breakdown of what sorts of sources are good to use for film articles, that list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#List_of_potential_resources. It's obviously likely that such resources do, or soon will exist. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Troll Station (YouTube Channel)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Troll Station (YouTube Channel). 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. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Content4wiki/Snelleman Tom

Hello Joe Decker. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Snelleman Tom".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Content4wiki/Snelleman Tom}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 23:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No concerns. Not mine, just something I reviewed or tried to clean up at some point. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete the article on Jan Morgenstern? I use Wikipedia as a resource where reliable information will be found. I look Jan up on July and he's there. I look him up again in January, and he's not here. Can you tell me why you deleted the article on Jan Morgenstern? I'm not whoever created his article, I'm just wondering why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.237.192 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is that I deleted him because that was the consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Morgenstern (3rd nomination). Largely this reflects a lack of in-depth coverage by sources that meet our various policies on reliability and editorial process. WP:BASIC, and the simplified version of that policy at WP:42, are probably the best places to begin in terms of understanding what Wikipedia's minimum criteria are for inclusion. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Leo Stolz

The article Leo Stolz was deleted last May as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Martinelli. However, since that time, Stolz has won the Hermann Trophy as the top college soccer player in the United States, meaning that he qualifies as notable per WP:NCOLLATH. (He has also signed a pro contract with the New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer, which will presumably enable him to qualify under WP:NFOOTY in less than two months from now anyway.) The current version of the article can now be found at User:Metropolitan90/Leo Stolz. Would you be willing to restore it to the mainspace? Or should I take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No concerns, sorry I was away. I've commented at DRV that I agree with you. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Anthony King - Basketball Deletion: Request to reinstate

Who left this note? Please sign your requests. Looks like Peridon has the article in their userspace at User:Peridon/Mark Anthony King. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Leo Stolz

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Leo Stolz. 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And thanks for your endorsement in the deletion review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to re-instate Wendy Starland

Hello! I wanted to start the Wendy Starland page and noticed it was previously posted and then deleted. I also went and investigated further and noticed a lot of vandalism to the page where appropriate references were repeatedly deleted leaving the page to lack sources. I have pages and pages of sources for this subject and would like to give the page another go. Would you be willing to re-instate it and I can work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artthings (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly can't put it in mainspace just based on that, but I could mail you a copy, and/or consider userfication for you to work on it. Can you show me a couple of reliable, independent sources that discuss Starland in depth?
You may first take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I have already started working on the page. I just want to see what it looked like before. If you could email me a copy that would be amazing. I will send the references I am working off of. Artthings (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I noticed the page was posted for many years so I do not see why it cannot be restored for contributers to fix and work on adding the reliable sources back? I just want to add an addition about this incident http://pagesix.com/2014/11/20/songwriter-who-discovered-lady-gaga-wins-7-3m-in-lawsuit/ ......Anyways, It just seemed odd but anything you can do to help I am open to. Artthings (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joe!

Just wanted to say a big thanks for your help with the article i wrote. My first attempt at an "encyclopaedic" piece. I truly am grateful and i'm learning from all the edits coming in... Wikipedia is a great learning place because of people like you. Thank you again. Dr Okoh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.80.165 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you! You are very welcome! --j⚛e deckertalk 15:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why was "MOV (x86 instruction)" deleted?

I came to wikipedia to learn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOV_%28x86_instruction%29

I deleted it in conclusion of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOV (x86 instruction). While that article doesn't explicitly say much in terms of our policies and guidelines, the two relevant issues here are WP:GNG (lack of in-depth discussion about the mov instruction under x86 in reliable sources) and perhaps WP:NOTMANUAL. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Why was my article deleted?

16:18, 1 October 2014 Joe Decker (talk | contribs) deleted page Daniel J. Allie (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Allie)

Hi Joe,

Please let me know why this page was deleted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliaboubou (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

All biographies on Wikipedia, particularly those referring to living people, need to be referenced to and based on "reliable, independent, third-party sources which provide in-depth coverage of the subject." (this policy is at WP:BASIC, the community usually holds politicians to a higher bar, which is spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. The participants in the discussion felt that neither bar was met or could be met through available sources. My apologies, I know that can be frustrating. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Leon Brittan

The person just recently died. Can you downgrade protection? --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call, although I tend to usually wait a bit, so I've modified the protection to expire in two weeks. Thanks for the note. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for 19 January 2015 rereview of submission by EpiSong


Hi, as the article was rejected, I've tried to edit the article as much as I could. Would this version make it? Should I save this version over the previous sandbox? OR should I just inform you at this site. ~Thanks. EpiSong (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd save it over the previous version and resubmit it. I'll be travelling in an area outside of internet coverage at all, another reviewer will have to take on the next review. My apologies for the delay in responding. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Matt Kendrick (musician winston-salem nc)

Why did you delete my page? It's been up for many years (since Wikipedia started). I am a well know musician in my area for 35 years. I believe this meets the music bio criteria. I think one cd with an international release is fine. Please put my entry back up. It has been edited and refined over the years by many users. You can check my website at http://www.mattkendrick.net. I will be glad to verify any information you don't feel is documented properly. Thank you. Artjazz (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artjazz (talk • contribs) 06:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the topic here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Kendrick, which I closed under a policy that defaults to deletion, but allows for recreation on request. That having been said, before you request undeletion, you will save yourself and the rest of us a great deal of back and forth, and likely redeletion of the article, if you can first understand, and then help us see, that the topic of the article (I take it that's you, but forgive me if I misunderstand) meets our basic inclusion criteria for living people, which is at WP:BASIC. I saw your email, you clearly have not yet understood what we are looking for in terms of sources being independent and reliable. That is understandable, our policies are poorly worded and inevitably confusing to people who haven't had some time around here.
You might take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful.
I will also add a bit of boilerplate I have for people writing about themselves or their work.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising. If you are writing about your own enterprise, it can be quite difficult to write a proper encyclopedia article--and in fact, our policies go out of their way to suggest that you do not try. Please read and understand WP:PSCOI. However, if you do wish to continue writing such an article, here's some advice.
One of the basic bars an article like this is going to have to meet is notability, which is defined under Wikipedia as being shown by coverage in arm's-length, reliable sources. These are usually things such as newspaper articles and magazine articles, and excludes the sort of "reprinted press releases" common to some local business rags--those sources must be independent and reliable.
My best advice is to start over, and then work at finding those sources. Find out what they talk about, and how. And then write your article based almost entirely on those sources. You can use primary sources to fill in entirely neutral and uncontroversial facts (where's the HQ?), but the use of primary sources should be a minimum.
This process is likely to be frustrating for you if you take any other path.
Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You. I read your essay and it is very helpful. At the inception, or close to it, of wikipedia I just threw a simple bio up on Wikipedia to add some content. Over the past decade or more it was edited and verified by it seemed quite a few users. I never did anything else to it that I can recall. You are right I do not understand the criteria of Wikipedia anymore for inclusion to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." My article is no big deal and I can definitely live without it but it was all true and I am well know on my corner of the planet. I believe that is one of the notability elements allowed. So.. Thanks for work on wikipedia. I request you undelete the page in question. Thanks and I'll try to document the information better to avoid another deletion . Artjazz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Duarte

I saw you were the deleting admin for this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hugo_Duarte I was wondering if you could please userfy the article for me. I would like to use it for my own article i am creating on him. Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I can, I'd feel a bit more comfortable if you could tell me what's changed since the unanimous discussion which resulted in its deletion--is there new coverage, and/or has he since met one of the critieria of NMMA? --j⚛e deckertalk 17:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (Added @CrazyAces489: --j⚛e deckertalk 17:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC) }}
It is less of his role in MMA, and more of his role in Luta Livre, Vale Tudo and the Wars that existed between Luta Livre and BJJ. http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-culture/jiu-jitsu-vs-luta-livre http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/8/24/2380028/ufc-134-rio-mma-historyrickson-gracie-vs-huge-duarte-beach-fightht-ever http://www.fightmagazine.com/mma-magazine/old-wounds-341/ CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seem good? He isn't just an MMA fighter, he played a significant role in the wars betweeen Luta Livre and BJJ in Brazil. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Give it a shot at User:CrazyAces489/Hugo Duarte, I haven't had a chance to look at the refs but it looks like you have potentially new material there, certainly worth a userfy. Best of luck! Note that I will be offline from today or tomorrow through around 8 February. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is currently looking like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/hugoduarte I am putting in far more sources based from articles concerning his experience in Brazil. Prior to his mma carrer. thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #142

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

14:58:10, 25 January 2015 review of submission by 101.188.108.171


i just wanted to ask as to why this article was deleted? i desire specific detail. please and thank you 101.188.108.171 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

company entry u-blox

Hello Joe

Carl Fenger has been in touch with you with regards to the u-blox company entry which we miss since August last year. You claimed that we need to prove independent sources to show our relevance. Please find a list with independent sources that should provide you with what you need to get our page back online.

Mentionings regarding the public stocks:

http://www.cash.ch/boerse/kursinfo/fullquote/ublox-Hldg/3336167/4/1

http://www.six-swiss-exchange.com/shares/security_info_en.html?id=CH0033361673CHF4

http://www.finanzen.ch/aktien/u-blox-Aktie

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=224353225527726

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=UBXN.S

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ubxn


Product related links:

http://www.ruggedpcreview.com/3_slates_winmate_ih83_rugged_tablet.html

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OptimalSystem_USB-dongle_with_u-blox_NEO-6P_PPP_Chip_Review

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090212_u-blox-3d-automotive-dead-reckoning-offers-improved-urban-navigation-video

http://developer.mbed.org/platforms/u-blox-C027/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/29/ublox_internet_of_things_radio_okayed_by_att/

http://www.pricedumper.ch/ublox+gps+receiver?ggkey=ublox+gps+receiver

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__64142__HKPilot_Micro_GPS_and_Compass_Module_U_BLOX_7_8g_.html

http://www.thingworx.com/partner_content/u-blox/

http://www.insidegnss.com/special/elib/u-blox_Whitepaper-Anti-Jamming_techniques_in_u-blox_GPS_receivers.pdf

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Over-Two-Million-Cars-In-the-US-Can-Be-Hacked-Remotely-470426.shtml

http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=17840


General company, acquisitions, and jobs related links:

http://www.greaterzuricharea.com/en/services/detail/u-blox-progresses-in-germany-1/

http://www.antcor.com/u-blox-acquires-antcor

http://www.rozee.pk/jobs-in-u-blox-company-4269.php


German language links, perhaps less useful:

http://www.fuw.ch/article/u-blox-mit-kraftigem-gewinnanstieg/

http://www.nzz.ch/meinung/reflexe/u-blox--die-ideen-maschine-aus-thalwil-1.18378147

http://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/u-blox-steigert-umsatz-und-gewinn-um-ueber-einen-drittel-492181

Please let me know if that is what you needed - and if we now can get back our wiki-page!

Since Carl left the company please get back in touch with me. Thanks in advance. Katja Igel

Manager Marketing Communication u-blox katja.igel@u-blox.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.34.89.245 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Apparently I did not completely communicate what we need well. I apologize. The actual guideline policy is at WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.
We need a couple of sources.
Yes, each must be independent, which rules out not only company communications but also press releases, even articles that are mostly warmed over press releases.
Each must also include in-depth, non-routine coverage of the company. A lot of the first links you provide are basically financial stat listsings from a database, which are qualitatively different than coverage from a source exercising editorial control and process--e.g., a newspaper, magazine or book. We use "reliable" as our code word for that sort of thing.
User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable provides more advice on this topic, although it doesn't get into the specifics of CORPDEPTH.
There may be a couple sources that meet all those criteria in your list, but as you can see, but I only need two or three that do. I hope this helps. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaymu Article Review/ Feedback

Hello Joe Decker, I have re-worked the article that you have declined before, topic: Kaymu. Please tell me if there is anything else that i can change to fully follow the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks in advance! Best regards Lena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lena Ortmann (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lena!
Thanks, I'm sorry that our guidelines for corporations, which are outlined on WP:CORP, are so difficult to make sense of for new editors here.
While you are welcome to submit that for review again by another reviewer, I don't think the article yet meets that criteria.
The first four sources are routine coverage and/or warmed-over press releases, and the problems with those are explained (even if badly) at WP:CORPDEPTH.
What we need are reliable sources (generally newspapers, magazines, books) that are independent (which means the articles really need to be written from a broader journalistic viewpoint, and on non-routine events, rather than written from press releases) that talk about the subject in depth.
User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable has some further discussion on some of these points, although it doesn't really get into the details of our specific requirements about companies and organizations, it does touch on what we mean by reliable and independent.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I was away trying to get to Antarctica.. the trip failed, but it was still an adventure. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the notification! --j⚛e deckertalk 03:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:01:36, 1 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by BobChan2


My submission of an article entitled Aerodynamic Whistles was rejected because there is an article entitled whistle already. The accepted article is descriptive of a few common whistles and suffers several defects. The editors have asked for the lead section to be updated and more references to be added. The title is singular and the subject is plural and some of the explanation needs to be changed. The suggestion was for me to add my material to this article. The problem is the search procedure. Whistle brings up clothing, dog whistles and music videos. The rejected article is quite lengthy and science based. The search procedure for aerodynamic whistles brings up relevant science based subjects including my Scientific American article on the subject. I understand that redundant articles are to be avoided and that must be the reason for rejection. I think the material in the rejected article is in keeping with Wikipedia purposes and is worthy of being accepted. I would like to explore several ways this might happen. The least desirable is to hide my material in the accepted article. If the title of that article can be changed to add a subtitle such as Whistles (Fluid Mechanical Sound) or to Whistle Sound; a search engine would find my added material. This would entail enormous copying to the accepted article, but I would be willing to do it, provided the lead section could be rewritten in keeping with the editors comments. My material would add almost 70 references as recommended by the editors. A more desirable solution would be to re-title the rejected article as a stand alone article. A title such as Whistle Sound is suggested or, better, Fluid Mechanical Whistles. I see no conflict with the accepted article since is was primarily descriptive of a limited range of whistles. I would appreciate hearing from you so my years of research can be included in Wikipedia.

BobChan2 Robert Chanaud


BobChan2 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't recall working on that article. Have you asked the reviewer who declined it? --j⚛e deckertalk 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:23:51, 3 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 1leah1


Yes, I would like help in getting my information about John L. Creech suitable for publishing. I'm writing his biography and conducted many interviews with him before his death. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to study how to go about creating a page for him. I need the Wikipedia for Dummies version. Definitely could use your help! 1leah1 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi!
The primary thing that the article needs to do to get launched is to include sources (which I'll explain more about) that both back the material in the article, and by their existence, show that he is a notable figure. References are, to be honest, a bit of a pain to use here on Wikipedia, but for the purposes of getting the article off the ground we are less interested in having them formatted right than having the basic necessary information within them. Help:Referencing for beginners lays out the "how to put the information in the article" in basic terms.
But what information? What we're looking for to start, for a person, is two or more sources, each of which must meet all of the critieria below.
  1. They must be reliable enough that readers treat them as reliable sources -- that is, they should be from reputable newspapers, magazines, books, and the like that have an editorial process.
  2. They must be independent from the subject himself, a good example of this is that even though a company could talk about itself, or put out press releases that got warmed over into trade magazine articles, we wouldn't allow those articles to count, because they weren't written from arm's length.
  3. They must talk about the subject in a good deal of detail, what we call "signficant coverage". A couple paragraphs or so each, say.
Once we have a couple sources like that within the article, it becomes clear that we have "enough" material that we could write some sort of article from the sourcesif we wished, and that is really the primary barrier to get over. We call that "two or more sources" rule our "notability guideline", but it's easier to think about it in terms of "enough good coverage" than "fame", I feel.
The page Wikipedia:Your first article may also provide some background, and the WP:Teahouse can be a great place to get quick answers to questions.
While there may be other issues with the article, I'd rather see us deal with the ones that would prevent us from promoting this into the encyclopedia first, and fix the rest later--that way more editors may be able to chip in and help build the article further. Hope this helps! --j⚛e deckertalk 04:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting the undeletion of my biography page, António Saiote

Hello, Mr. Decker,

I recently noted you deleted my personal bio page. I created my page after seeing other pages from other portuguese artists I know and worked with, and I thought of joining them here. You deleted my page, due to the general notability and reliable guidelines from what I understood. Their pages were never deleted, despite the same requirements, so it came as a bit of a surprise for me. I now understand my bio page needs some extra work, sources and things like that, so if you could, I would like you to work with me on resolving this issue. I may find and scan some printed articles of myself, and I have recordings of me performing in public as a musician (I had a youtube link on the deleted page), but despite that, I don't really have many external sources on issues such as were I studied and where I work, as you know there isn't a habit for schools to publish online articles on individual student graduations and things like that. Let's work together on this, as I am an internationally respected and awarded performer in my field and I feel I am worthy of having a page here.

Best regards, António Saiote.

PS: I tried finding some pages referencing me, but many are in portuguese. Also, our press isn't know from exhalting musical artists, but mostly soccer players:

I'm going to have to look deeper into this, in the meantime, let me tell you what I'm looking for. I'm largely looking for sources which are editorial (newspapers, magazines, books, the bulletin board source is unlikely to qualify). I'm looking for sources that are not press releases or reprinted press releases, and at least one of those articles feels like a press release. And the source also has to talk about the subject in detail. If there are sufficient sources that meet those criteria, I could reinstate the article.
As you are writing about yourself, I should add that it can be quite difficult to write a proper encyclopedia article about oneself--and in fact, our policies go out of their way to suggest that you do not try, although they do not prohibit it. I would take a look at WP:PSCOI.
I hope this helps, I realize our policies and procedures are a bit of a maze. Best regards in the meantime, and I hope to reply in the next day or two. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and consideration.

Actually, my son wrote the wikipedia entry, but probably that doesn't make much difference. I do have a biography written about me, but in printed form, not online. As referred, I have other articles and reviews, but in printed form also. As I focus more nowadays on conducting and teaching rather than being a soloist, you can understand most press articles would menction my student's awards and the orchestra merit as a whole, rather than me as the relevant focus, despite my obvious contribuition. I have read and I understand the notability and third party requirements, but as stated, I have other "notable" portuguese colleagues with wikipedia entries that seemed acceptable, and that, along with being a respected international soloist / conducter / teacher, along with having awards and invitations to be in many international classical events both as a performer and as member of the jury, was the reason I felt confident on having one of my own. If notability for a classical musician meant only appearing on television and having lots of young fans, it would be bad for the quality of the art.

Best regards, António Saiote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adikeo (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting the undeletion of my biography page, António Saiote

Hello, Mr. Decker,

I recently noted you deleted my personal bio page. I created my page after seeing other pages from other portuguese artists I know and worked with, and I thought of joining them here. You deleted my page, due to the general notability and reliable guidelines from what I understood. Their pages were never deleted, despite the same requirements, so it came as a bit of a surprise for me. I now understand my bio page needs some extra work, sources and things like that, so if you could, I would like you to work with me on resolving this issue. I may find and scan some printed articles of myself, and I have recordings of me performing in public as a musician (I had a youtube link on the deleted page), but despite that, I don't really have many external sources on issues such as were I studied and where I work, as you know there isn't a habit for schools to publish online articles on individual student graduations and things like that. Let's work together on this, as I am an internationally respected and awarded performer in my field and I feel I am worthy of having a page here.

Best regards, António Saiote.

PS: I tried finding some pages referencing me, but many are in portuguese. Also, our press isn't know from exhalting musical artists, but mostly soccer players:

I'm going to have to look deeper into this, in the meantime, let me tell you what I'm looking for. I'm largely looking for sources which are editorial (newspapers, magazines, books, the bulletin board source is unlikely to qualify). I'm looking for sources that are not press releases or reprinted press releases, and at least one of those articles feels like a press release. And the source also has to talk about the subject in detail. If there are sufficient sources that meet those criteria, I could reinstate the article.
As you are writing about yourself, I should add that it can be quite difficult to write a proper encyclopedia article about oneself--and in fact, our policies go out of their way to suggest that you do not try, although they do not prohibit it. I would take a look at WP:PSCOI.
I hope this helps, I realize our policies and procedures are a bit of a maze. Best regards in the meantime, and I hope to reply in the next day or two. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and consideration.

Actually, my son wrote the wikipedia entry, but probably that doesn't make much difference. I do have a biography written about me, but in printed form, not online. As referred, I have other articles and reviews, but in printed form also. As I focus more nowadays on conducting and teaching rather than being a soloist, you can understand most press articles would menction my student's awards and the orchestra merit as a whole, rather than me as the relevant focus, despite my obvious contribuition. I have read and I understand the notability and third party requirements, but as stated, I have other "notable" portuguese colleagues with wikipedia entries that seemed acceptable, and that, along with being a respected international soloist / conducter / teacher, along with having awards and invitations to be in many international classical events both as a performer and as member of the jury, was the reason I felt confident on having one of my own. If notability for a classical musician meant only appearing on television and having lots of young fans, it would be bad for the quality of the art.

Best regards, António Saiote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adikeo (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Jenna Torres

Jenna Torres was deprodded and, since I noticed you had added a prod2, I thought I would let you know in case you want to remove your tag. I was disappointed with this action and left a comment here. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

@Agricola44: Ahhh, I see, I can kinda understand where both of you are coming from. I've removed the PROD2, really, once anyone objects for any reason PROD is no longer an appropriate outlet, and I'd recommend taking this up at AfD. Sorry if that just turns out to be an extra lap, but it never ever pays to argue a PROD, it's better to let go of the idea it's obvious and let the next process handle it. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I was disappointed in DGG because his (somewhat flippant) comment suggested that he did no diligent checking, but simply removed the PROD – this is not like him. As we all know, PROD is for uncontroversial delete, which this article certainly was. I presume someone will come along in due time with AfD nom, but I guess the article (and several others like it) will stand until then. Thanks and best, Agricola44 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
I understand your disappointment, but I've seen DGG's intuition prove out often when I would have thought a case hopeless, so.. In any case, no prejudice against an AfD if you'd like to file one. Hope I can be of more help to you in the future. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 14:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

John Banks Elliott

Dear Joe Decker, My email of 20 December 2014 to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons has been responded to by, Jeevan Jose. Ref: [Ticket# 2014122010001297] in which it states that they have received permission for the image and have made the necessary modifications to the file pages: for which I am truly grateful. Could I please kindly ask you to place the photos for me, as I do not want to make any more mistakes? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ambassador_John_Banks_Elliott._9_February_2011.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ambassador_John_Banks_Elliott_a_week_after_his_97th_Birthday_17_Feb_2014.jpg

I have not yet had a response to my second email dated 9 January 2015 also to Permissions – Wikimedia Commons, concerning the group photo with Chairman Voroshilov and the group photo with Chairman Brezhnev. I attached the letter sent to me from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia, Archives Department (MIDR) dated 30 October 2014. I hope this will be sufficient permission to use the photographs on Ambassador Elliott’s page.

Thank you and hope to hear from you soon, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done And yes, I've heard that there are some unusually large backlogs (even for us) at OTRS right now. Feel free to tweak the captions and such, but keep them brief, that is part of our in-house style. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 07:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Joe Decker, thank you so much for all your help. Having the photos restored to the article means a lot, and it looks so much better. Thanks again, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, and thank you for your patience! Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 14:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

13:51:16, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Shreesha


I think this article is talks about first Sci-fi Novel in Kannada Language. already touching a million copy of sales.

Shreesha (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I think this article is talks about first Sci-fi Novel in Kannada Language. already touching a million copy of sales.

The New Indian Express review is precisely the sort of reference we are looking for... we simply need one more of them. You are half way there! Like the NIE link, we need something which is in-depth, independent, and written by a reliable source.
The sales figures may or may not be correct, there are prior Kannada SF novels, but admittedly few. Neither of these points addresses directly, however, what we need to have an article on the topic, for that, we simply need the "two, reliable, third-party independent sources" that I asked for when I originally declined the article. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 15:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


German Trade Office Post

Hi John, you deleted the post for the German Trade Office Taipei. Could you give me some more feedback on what to do about the page and the article to make it comply with Wikipedia standards? I already added multiple secondary sources per your request, but that does not seem to make a difference! Thanks for your support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHK Intern (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I realize our requirements and our processes can be pretty opaque, so I'm going to try and make a little sense of what's happened and where you can go from here, both.
First, I have to say, you should probably ask for a username change or create a new account, as the current title suggests that it is a "role acocunt", rather than something that belongs to a specific individual who wouldn't vary even if that person left their job or such. The policy explanation is at Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_implying_shared_use, and it's clear you're acting in good faith, so I'll just point you at where you can ask for that to be done, that's at Wikipedia:Changing username.
Moving on to the article itself...
I deleted the article based on my assessement that the consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_Trade_Office_Taipei as to whether the topic, that is, the trade office, met our requirements to have an article about an organization. If multiple sources, each of which must meet a number of requriements, can be shown to discuss the trade office in depth, then it might be possible to overturn the ruling. In particular you'd be looking for articles that are:
  1. reliable, which in our terms, means both "has a reputation for fact-checking and an editorial process". Think newspapers, magazines, books
  2. independent, that is, written at arm's length from the subject. Can't be written by the subject, people working for the subject or affiliated organizations, no interviews, no press releases, no lightly reworded press releases
  3. in-depth: really needs to talk about the trade office in detail, a paragraph or two at a bare minimum
  4. non-routine: WP:ORGDEPTH spells this out more, but largely, this excludes basic day to day organizational annoucements
It can be troublingly difficult for new editors to figure out precisely what we mean by these subjectively worded standards. I would also recommend talking to some editors at the WP:Teahouse, which is a great place for newer editors to get targeted answers to their specific concerns. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 03:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
MARIYANVA (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why thank you! That's very kind! --j⚛e deckertalk 03:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kevin Terrell

Hello Joe Decker. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Kevin Terrell".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Kevin Terrell}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, not my monkey, just a draft I probably touched while working at AfC. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Appears I've missed the window of opportunity here. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone broke the "Article_wizard" page and it needs to be rolled back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard

as of this typing it looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_wizard&oldid=647667958 and that is not right. I don't have the power to rollback or undo. I am unaware of some other way I could fix this myself without help.

Eckeck77 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw this, apparently User:Gparyani got to it. I'd recommend WP:ANI or the like in the future rather than contacting an individual admin--not that I'm not happy to do it, just it'll get seen more quickly that way. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page About Splunk

Dear Mr. Decker:

I write in regards to the Wikipedia page about Splunk. WHOIS information regarding www.learnsplunk.com shows that the website was first registered on January 5, 2015. All 30 "matched phrases" that appear in the Duplication Detector report, however, appeared on the Wikipedia page about Splunk well before that date. See link to Wikipedia page about Splunk dated December 23, 2014. Thus, www.learnsplunk.com plainly copied content from the Wikipedia page about Splunk and not the other way around. Accordingly, Splunk would greatly appreciate it if you removed the flag and restored the page. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.

Naomi Jane Gray (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Naomi,
I looked more into this, and found other signs that this was a reverse copy, that is, that the learn splunk web site had copied the text from WP rather than the other way around. I've removed the notification template, thank you for your assistance in resolving this, and my apology for the delay. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You didn't Delete In Job

Hey I noticed you closed the AfD for In Job, and then just deleted a redirect to the page. The actual article, In Job needs deleting. To clarify, I moved the article from In job to In Job during the AfD just per standard naming conventions, but didn't move the AfD for convenience. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahh! Yeah, moving titles during AfDs can do that. Anyway, should be fixed now. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
PS: Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Parker

I see you deleted a post about John P. Parkers wife, "There in 1848 he married Miranda Boulden, free born in the city.[2] They moved to Ripley, a growing center of abolitionist activity, and had six children together:[2]"

Why did you delete this post? What do you know about Miranda Boulden or Parker's time in Cincinnati? You can email me at porterd@cinci.rr.com. or through our website HamiltonAVenueRoadToFreedom.org

Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.59.186 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The article on Miranda Boulden was deleted four years ago, after proposed deletion tag was left on the article for seven days with no response.
The underlying issue is that the text of the article did not, in and of itself, explain her individual significance. The article stated the was born a black slave, that she married Parker, and that Parker bought his freedom--nothing else. It was also entirely unsourced.
You are welcome to recreate an article on Boulden if she was notable independently from Parker, but the article should actually have to say what she was noted for, and include a source or two establishing that. If that's not possible (and I'm sorry I don't know either way, forgive my ignorance), we can at least arrange it so that people searching on her name are taken to Parker's article. Let me know. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 18:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Karindalam

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave it another few months, it's been about eight or nine since the last one, but this is sort of the perfect use case for PC. Thanks for the suggestion. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunate Review of Article

Please see the article reviewed at [[2]] and state what's so wrong with the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

While this isn't a complete list, here are a few suggestions:
  1. What I noticed first is half the article is "according to his family...." This is inappropriate, most of what is said in an article should be based on what is said about an article by sources "at arm's length" from the subject.
  2. This "at arm's length" requirement also means you should focus, in the sources you provide, less on interviews, which are not "at arm's length."
  3. Statements such as "He likes to welcome new challenges to his life" sound more like a dating ad than objective, arm's length reporting, and really don't belong in a Wikipedia biography.
  4. Not at all a big deal, but take a look at WP:REFPUNCT, more or less, when you have a period or comma and a reference, the reference should go after the period or comma.
I hope you find these recommendations helpful, I'd also suggest getting assistance at the WP:Teahouse. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 16:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance.

After a few additions I decided I wouldn't make any more efforts to bring User:Geo Swan/Donald Ross (British Army officer) up to the standards to be considered for placement back into article space here. Instead I captured the names on the contribution history, for attribution, and ported it to a non-WMF wiki with more lenient inclusion standards.

Since then I placed a {{db-u1}} on the userification you helped me with, and, as promised, I am letting you know what I ended up doing.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--I really appreciate your work here, please let me know if I can be of help in the future. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods

I created the new article Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods and have properly cited all information, as you can see. The tribe is in the process of obtaining state recognition by Oregon pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 16 (aka HCR 16), which can be viewed on the Oregon State Legislative website at https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HCR16. If recognized, the tribe will be the first Native American Mixed-Blood tribe to do so in the United States. You previously deleted the article in September 2014. This new article does not violate any Wikipedia Terms of Service/Use, as it has proper referencing and sources, such as news stories and the bill to recognize the tribe. Articles on Wikipedia should not be deleted for personal opinion, but simply on references and sources. Clearly, as the tribe does not charge any fees it cannot be a scam, and is obviously not a "hoax." Just ask the more than 900 enrolled members or the Oregon State Legislature. Just for clarification, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of scam: ": a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation <an insurance scam>" or ": a dishonest way to make money by deceiving people", and here is the direct link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam. The tribe has been established for 6+ years, and has yet to deceive or scam anyone. Thank you for your time. Tribalchairman (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods. 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. Tribalchairman (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The participants in the discussion which I closed believed the tribe to be a hoax, and not verifiable, as we would require by WP:V. I would be glad to see the article restored if they were mistaken. Thank you for the note. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Joe - they were mistaken about the tribe. The Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods has 900+ enrolled members, has signed two international treaties with two Metis Nations in Canada, and has a bill in the Oregon House of Representatives to recognize our tribe as the first Mixed-Blood Tribe to be recognized. All of this has sources. The tribe has also been on the news twice as a featured story. Here are some links about the tribe:

Everything is verifiable through great sources. I hope you were able to see that we are not a scam or hoax, and are a real Native American MIXED-BLOOD tribe. I have no problem putting up a fully sourced and referenced edit to the article. Our members do not deserve this. An article should abide by the rules and not be deleted for personal opinion or view. Only the facts should matter. And the fact is that the new edit to the article will be fully within the guidelines of the Terms of Service. Please help. EncyclopedicGuardian (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see various blocks here. --j⚛e deckertalk 13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Article

You deleted this article. [3] Can you userfy it for me. I believe I can establish notability. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, @CrazyAces489:, it's at Draft:Paul Vizzio. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 15:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Science and technology

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Science and technology. 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. -War wizard90 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like this had already been handled, no concerns. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Philip of France, Archdeacon of Paris

This is a minimal and totally unsourced stub, created on 24 Feb. I notice that you deleted Talk:Philip of France, Archdeacon of Paris on 23 Feb - perhaps you can see whether this new article is any better than the previous version it replaces? PamD 23:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @PamD: ! I've always assumed G4 didn't apply to articles deleted via proposed deletion, the idea being that recreation is tacit evidence that someone disagrees. I'm not at all a fan of unsourced articles of any form, but I suspect this one is going to have to end up at AfD. I have undeleted the history if you want to dig through it, though. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Query to the Audit Subcommittee

Hello. As per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Procedure, I have twice emailed the audit subcommittee regarding a potential misuse of CheckUser tools. I have not received a response to either of those emails, so I am attempting to ask the relevant questions here without revealing private information.

Multiple editors (Manul, Astynax, and John Carter) are claiming that a member of this audit subcommittee has (off-wiki) provided them with evidence of sock puppetry by me. I deny that any such evidence could possibly exist (given that I have never engaged in puppetry of any kind, ever), but that is not why I am coming here.

I am coming here so that this subcommittee can determine if a member performed a CU, despite a recent SPI request being declined, and – if a check was run – what the reasoning was per Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy (“The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run.”). And finally, why CU results would possibly be given off-wiki to other editors to resolve.

I find it extremely unlikely that an audit committee member is in any way involved in providing personal or other non-public information to editors, or in discussing any off-wiki “evidence”, but the editors are claiming such.

My questions:

  • Was a CU run against my account?
  • If yes, by whom and at who’s request?
  • What was the rationale for running the check (why was a check run)?
  • Did a CU provide personal or other non-public data of any kind, including insinuation or anything that could be interpreted as linking my account to others, to other editors off-wiki?

I request an Audit Subcommittee investigation of this situation and the involved editors' claims.

Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Tgeairn,
It is my understanding that we sent a response yesterday, I'm guessing I saw this late. Life events on my part were in part responsible for the delay in responding to you, please accept my apologies, and feel free to contact me directly if you did not receive a formal response. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 19:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you j⚛e. Yes, I received a clear response after posting the above. Given that no CheckUser was run against my account before the supposed statements were made, I have compiled a partial list of diffs of where multiple editors have based statements on the supposed off-wiki communication. Obviously there is something that doesn't add up here (no CU was run, therefore no such statements could have been made, so why are three different accounts all making claims based on the results of the fictional CU?). I don't really know where to go with it next, but I really do wish the behaviour would stop. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

u-blox page

Hi Joe,

You deleted our page, Sara Curry Humanitarian Award, and I was hoping I could at least obtain a copy of the original text that we submitted.

Thank you! Allison

Hi Joe, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.179.118 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC) We have recently been in touch with you about the u-blox Wikipedia page being removed. My name is Sara Moss, and I am now taking over as contact in our marketing department. I compiled the long list of references that Katja Igel sent in February 2015. You said we should send 2 or 3, and I listed many, to be sure at least a few would be acceptable. You rejected these, and it is not clear why. You only referred us to the page about primary criteria, notability, etc. This is useful, as it lists MANY non-credible references. But I am still unsure what then is credible enough. It is easy to find references, because u-blox has been a company since 1997, and a publicly trading company since 2007. This is why I sent many references the first time. I do not want to waste your or my time, I just want to get us back on Wikipedia. You asked for 2 or 3, and now I am listing 6 references, simply because for me, I am still very unsure what counts to you as acceptable. I have added a note to each link, stating what it is: http://connectedworld.com/u-blox-module-approved-by-att/ An article by Connected World http://www.mobilemarketportal.com/mobile-platform/articles/390140-sara-u260-dual-band-3g2g-module-u-blox.htm Independent announcement of certification by AT&T http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/u-blox-taoglas-and-sprint-announce-cdma-m2m-seminars.htm News on Sprint website announcement about seminars in cooperation with u-blox http://mycoordinates.org/cost-effective-gnss-positioning-techniques/ An article generally about GNSS positioning by two experts with many references to u-blox https://github.com/KumarRobotics/ublox A technical repository site with information about u-blox GPS receivers http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/u-blox-licenses-parthus-global-positioning-system-gps-technology-for-deployment-in-next-generation-mobile-internet-devices-75859032.html An independent press release from the year 2000. Please let me know if these are acceptable and when we can expect to have our page back. If there is still something more you need, please let me know as soon as you can. Thank you! Sara Moss, Technical Editor at u-blox, Thalwil, Switzerland — Preceding unsigned comment added by U-blox Marketing (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sara,
Sorry for the delay.
The issue is not the pure number of sources, it's the number of sources that are written completely independently of the company, *and* which provide reliable coverage, *and* which provide signficant coverage. For example, PRNEWSWIRE is a paid source for press releases, as I'm sure you're aware, it is not a neutral and reliable source.
You may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful.
I know our guidelines can be ... well, they *are* simply confusing to new editors. I'm sorry. You may want to consider taking some questions to the Teahouse, at WP:Teahouse. It is an excellent resource for new editors. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 03:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Help getting content from deleted page

Hi Joe, You deleted our page, Sara Curry Humanitarian Award, and I was hoping I could at least obtain a copy of the original text that we submitted. Thank you! Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.179.118 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, is there somewhere I can mail it? If you create an account here, you can set it so that I can send email, or you can use the "Email this user" link to send me email to let me know where I should send it. You probably don't want to give out your email address here. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Medical Guardian Deleted Page

Hello Joe,

I was taking a look through our past history for our Wiki page and it said that you had deleted out all of our information about our company. Can you explain to me why this was done and how we can avoid this in the future. Just a little confused on why this occurred.

Thanks, Matt Guerrieri Director of Marketing Medical Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.148.26 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matt,
I deleted the article after determining the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Guardian indicated a consensus to delete the article under our policies.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising your product, service or other business. If you are writing about your own enterprise, it can be quite difficult to write a proper encyclopedia article--and in fact, our policies go out of their way to suggest that you do not try. Please read and understand WP:PSCOI. However, if you do wish to continue writing such an article, here's some advice.
One of the basic bars an article like this is going to have to meet is notability, which is defined under Wikipedia as being shown by coverage in arm's-length, reliable sources. These are usually things such as newspaper articles and magazine articles, and excludes the sort of "reprinted press releases" common to some local business rags--those sources must be independent and reliable, and beyond usual annoucement fodder, WP:CORPDEPTH applies here..
My best advice is to start over, and then work at finding those sources. If the company clearly and unequivocally meets our criteria from those sources, then I can allow recreation, in the alternative, you can appeal my decision at WP:DRV -- our deletion review process. If the article is recreated, it is essential that the article be based almost entirely on that type of source. You can use primary sources to fill in entirely neutral and uncontroversial facts (where's the HQ?), but the use of such primary sources should be a minimum. This process is likely to be frustrating for you if you take any other path. Best of luck!
PS: You may also want to ask for help at the WP:Teahouse, which is a Q&A forum for editors new to our policies and whatnots. I realize this place can be a frustrating bueracracy to deal with, and they're a good place to go to get help in plain English. All the best, --j⚛e deckertalk 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Jiwa Financials

Hi,

The article regarding the company Jiwa Financials and the product Jiwa were previously deleted citing lack of notability. I ask if a reference to Jiwa Financials from the publication "Financial Review" : Jiwa Financials is notable enough for an article on Jiwa Financials to meet the requirements.

Thanks for your time,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesheen (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike,
No, that's not going to help. It's apparent that much of what is written there was written by the company itself.
I'm sorry our processes are so confusing, you may also wish to ask for help at the WP:Teahouse, which is a great place for new editors to start learning about things like this in plain English. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 16:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nitesh Estates Limited

Sir, please allow me to create this page as I am intend to work on it. I found it notable enough to be present on Wikipedia and hence requesting you to do so. Please allow me to create the page and once it is being made then please make the desired changes that you want to do on it. You are an expert and definitely I need your help in the creation and stability of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.77.212 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for organizations and corporations, which is at WP:CORP? If you do, I'm not sure why you don't simply show me that the topic meets those criteria. If you don't, then I would be happy to explain more when you have actually read those criteria. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I have read the WP:CORP and hence on the basis of that itself requesting you all to allow me to create this page. I will be using the reliable sources to create this page. I have found various reliable links of the existence of this company and hence believe that this page must be there on wikipedia. Please allow me to do so atleast once and if still you feel that the page is promotional then please help me to modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.77.212 (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please show me two of those sources. The article has been deleted quite a number of times for not meeting our requirements. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)