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.
I am not sure why you approved the Shashi Prakash for listing on Wikipedia and what makes this politician special to deserve an exclusive page. There are hundreds of Shashi Prakash's in this world contributing in better ways to the world than this bloke.
At most his name should figure in some descriptive articles about Indian Politics, not as an exclusive page like you would to Mahatma Gandhi. Or are you saying that every Indain politician's name should be figuring on Wikipedia. Please maintain integrity of this forum. find this quite disgusting to be honest. Sorry to be blatant.
(talk page watcher) @172.56.3.127: Please see WP:POLITICIAN: anyone who has held office in their country's national or state legislature is considered to be "notable" enough to have a Wikipedia article. If there are some more notable Shashi Prakashes, please create articles about them. Initially you would need to give them a title like "Shashi Prakash (architect)" or similar, but you could request a move to move the politician to a similar "disambiguated" title and create a "disambiguation page" at the basic name "Shashi Prakash" to link to them both or all. In answer to your question: yes, every Indian politician who is or has been an elected member of a state or national assembly, for whom there is a reliable source for this information, can have an article in Wikipedia if someone wants to create it.
Please remember to add a section heading above any contribution you make to a talk page to start a new discussion, and to sign your comments using ~~~~. Thanks. PamD16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, so Mansaray is in the starting 11 for Seattle S2 which means he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. One minor concern though, another user recreated the page prior to the start of the MLS season before I G4'd it. Is it possible you can still restore the content that was deleted per discussion and not the one that was speedy deleted? – Michael (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Has he actually played yet? That's required by NFOOTY... I think I can selectively restore the revisions if that is dealt with, yeah. (Or restore all of it and then revert normally to the correct older revision.) --j⚛e deckertalk02:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
SHould be back now. I restored all the revs, and reverted to the last version pre-AfD, but I'm sure you'll want to update it. Thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk03:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no automatic presumption there, no. What we really need to show a person is notable is laid out at WP:BASIC. It is less a question of "how famous?" as it is a question of "how much neutral, reliable, and independent coverage exists", remember that as an encyclopedia, our articles should be based on and written from neutral, reliable and independent coverage. If that coverage doesn't exist in quantity, we can't write a proper article, and our notability guidelines help make sure that there's enough to write a proper article. --j⚛e deckertalk14:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.
Hello, Joe Decker,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
That's right, it's not. But perhaps there are some references that are. What you are looking for are references that are all of the following. (a) "reliable", which in our lingo means a bit more than that, you really want a source with an editorial process checking for accuracy, (b) "independent" - written by someone with no connection to the subject of the article in any way (d) "signficant" - for corporations, this needs to be not only more than a passing reference, but coverage that goes beyond routine announcements. Patent filings fail part b.
Generally for corporations you'll be looking for newspapers, magazines, books. These are sources that use arm's length, reliable people to assees not only the accuracy but the significance of information. You might try the Teahouse at WP:Teahouse if you'd like to understand this requirement better. --j⚛e deckertalk21:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Request on 02:09:53, 2 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Monelle
Hi, I think you did not accept my article because I copied it from the web site I created for my mother, Sonia Malkine, and you did not realize that I wrote it. It has been suggested that I might donate the copyright to you, although I am not sure that is what you want. Where do I go from here?
If I recall correctly, your text was not particularly promotional nor biased -- if that's the case, there are two things we need. First we need to know that we're not grabbing text from someone else, it's simple (even if not super fast) to donate the appropriate license after reading the instructions at WP:DCM. It will also be important, afterward, to show that the material is grounded in what is written elsewhere in reliable, third-party sources, it appears that your mother did receive a reasonable amount of in-depth sources, but if you can send an email as described in the DCM link, in a few days another editor will likely be able to restore your draft and move to the next step. Sorry for the delay in responding, and thank you for your efforts to improve our encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk21:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Request on 03:19:41, 7 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 103.30.92.14
1. Should I add moreferences? Matching the reworded content from http://www.propertyclub.com.au/about-property-club ?
2. Or how should I write it? I mean it's gonna be still the same company, so it will be sort of copyright
3. Could you point out what section exactly needs to be changed? so I can focus on that.
I think if you could spent little bit of time on point n.3 we could achieve approval quite fast.
No problem. I realize our policies and things can be very confusing.
As I recall, the issue had to do with copying and/or paraphrasing, which puts Wikipedia in the place of hosting something that's a copyright issue, since we have (so far, at least) no reason to believe that the text has been licensed by the copyright owner as required by the thing that says ", you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL " whenever you edit a page here. You don't have to know that that gobblygook means, but what it largely means is writing in your own words and only in your own words, written from scratch.
That turns out to be important for another reason, so let me just make a constructive suggestion.
Pretty much every article on Wikipedia should be based on what is written about the subject from arm's length, reliable sources. By arm's length--sources like the company itself don't count. Really, you'd be looking for newspapers, magazines, books, which talk about the subject from a completely independent point of view and which have editorial oversight.
Once you've found those sources, then summarize what they say -- not rephrase, but boil down the key points they make.
(If multiple sources of that type don't exist, then the article likely doesn't' meet our basic inclusion criteria for topics in the encyclopedia--so hopefully they exist!)
That's how it's done--but I realize it can be all pretty mystifying anyway. You may also want to ask for assistance at the WP:Teahouse, which is a great place for new editors to get hands-on answers to questions and concerns. They're a great group of editors. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk05:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As the specific awards you've described were included in the article at the time it was deleted (if I'm reading the history correct), I can't say that I think this represents new information which would let me unilaterally override the consensus, moreover, how BLP1E is interpreted here could run either way. I'm not unsympathetic to your argument, and I know your work well enough to take your request quite seriously, but at this point, I would recommend WP:DRV, where I'll stand aside at let the folks there decide how to proceed. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk05:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state and local political scandals in the United States
I see that you were the closing administrator on the article "List of state and local political scandals in the United States". I saw that it would be deleted, and I meant to copy off the contents of the article for my own research purposes (mainly for my web site The Political Graveyard), but missed it before it was gone. Could you retrieve it for me?
If you'd rather not burn up Wikipedia space, you could email it to me. My account name on Gmail is my surname, same as here.
I solemnly swear I will not attempt to re-create the deleted article.
Hi, earlier today you closed the AFD of the above article. I have noticed this diff, where Palem Srikanth Reddy appears to be asking for a copy of the deleted material. Perhaps they are seeking for the material to be userfied, but part of the problem before was moving of the contents between user and article namespaces. Hopefully you can provide the user (and/or me?) with some advice. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I admit to being a little confused as to what's being asked, but if you'd like a copy of the text I can provide one via email or the like. I'd prefer not to userfy, though, there is a consensus that the fellow doesn't meet our biographical notability criteria, short of additional evidence of notability, I don't think there's much chance that userfication would lead to an article going forward. But if I've misundestood, my apologies, just let me know! Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear enough before. I certainly don't want a copy of the text, I just wanted to let you know that the other user wanted one. Anyway, he must have found one shortly after, because he pasted it back to his user page, which was then speedy deleted as a G4.
My question was, in general, what is the most appropriate way of obtaining deleted materal? I wanted to provide that advice to the user in the form of a link to a policy page, but couldn't find anything after a quick glance around the links on the WP:AFD page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
First, no worries, I think I was more confused by the user's page than by anything you said. I went and looked, and you're right about one thing, there isn't a really obvious place where what happens in practice for "copies of deleted material", etc., is explained well. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles gives a hint of it, but the short form is generally: "If you can ask the admin who deleted it, try that first. If they're gone, try one of the admins in the category above. If you feel that the deletion process has gone awry, try WP:DRV." Anyway, if you would leave a note for the editor, I would certainly be glad to send them a copy of the deleted material if it were helpful. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk03:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to tell me why my opinion would have changed? Has there been some new coverage of them in reliable, secondary sources? --j⚛e deckertalk15:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of articles closed as "redirect" at AFD
Hi. In February of this year, you closed this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shin Jimin, which included an AFD of Park Choa. (Due to errors in transclusion of her AFD to the log the separate Park Choa AFD was not correctly rolled into this one.) The result of the AFD was to delete the article and redirect it to AOA (band). However, editors have twice reverted those changes and reinstated the article. The same thing happened with another "kpop" article with the same AFD result; it was reverted back into existence three times. My question is, is there a way to prevent these reversions from occurring? Certainly the option should be there should the subject become notable in the future, but in the meantime, this is getting to be a little tiresome. Can redirect pages be locked to prevent reversion by non-admins? Or, do you have other suggestions for dealing with this situation? Thanks for any feedback. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It can be tiresome in general, with respect to Shin Jimin, I can't argue that this is the redirect equivalent of an equivalent recreation, because there has been new coverage that would have to be assessed since the AfD discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shin_Jimin&diff=656694271&oldid=643759198). Pages can be locked when they've been repeatedly recreaed, but it's probably, unfortunately, best to reAfD the one particular case--usually whether the recreations are considered abusive enough to warrant protection is apparent at that point. Sorry for the extra lap. --j⚛e deckertalk13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the advice. Since the only new addition to Park Choa was a reality series, which WP:MUSIC says does not confer notability for band member, we just reverted the reversion. The other article in question was completely unchanged, just an editor saying he didn't agree with the admin's decision. So that was re-reverted as well. We'll see what happens and consider re-AFDing if it continues. A lot of editors in kpop are sock/meatpuppets who go away/are blocked on their own. Thanks again! Shinyang-i (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I can if you'd like, but the article does not appear, as I see it, to have reliable, independent, secondary sources which cover the topic in depth. What I'm seeing is largely links to the organizing organization, I believe. What we're looking for, instead, is most likely to be newspaper coverage, magazine coverage, that sort of thing, that talks about this year's championship in depth. You can learn more about what we require in that regard at WP:GNG, do you have any coverage that meets all of those requirements?
You may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating what we need. I hope that it will be helpful. --j⚛e deckertalk13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually have the coverage of the tournament in local news websites in portuguese with most of the informations like the table, the top scorer, the gimnasium it was played, the dates and a review of the final match. Argemiro1975 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm pretty sure the first of the three references is the sort of thing we're looking for, I'm unfamiliar enough with the other two to give you a firm guess as to whether policy would pass them or not. But as a "SOFT DELETE", the article was eligible to be restored on request, and I've moved it into place. Thank you for working to improve the referencing on the article, and best of luck going forward. --j⚛e deckertalk21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hallo, after moving the current article from "K rend" to K Rend I discovered (from the creator's talk page) that there had been a previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K_Rend. I'm not sure whether the current article is particularly notable - I haven't had the energy to check the links but suspect most of them are directory-type listings. Could you have a look and see whether the new article is a re-creation of the old AfD'd one, or is a substantial improvement on it? Thanks. PamD16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
They look awfully similar, I think G4 was a good call. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll try and keep an eye on it. --j⚛e deckertalk20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that you've protected it from re-creation as "Recently deleted BLP", which might cause confusion as it's a company, not a person! PamD22:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I think it's great that you want to expand red links, and I absolutely appreciate your efforts here, and I'm sorry if my note came off as anytihng less.
Our basic hurdle (which really is not very well explained to irregular editors here, I'm sorry) for writing an article about a subject is our general notability guideline, which insists on the existence of a certain depth and reliability of sources on a topic. As far as having something at AfC, we ask that editors put in references that show that the subject meets that guideline, it avoids a lot of painful and frustrating deletion discussions going forward, as frustrating as this "extra lap" is, trust me, the deletion process is worse.
With respect to films, there are a number of places you can go to get help finding sources that will work to get the draft approved. I'd start with the WP:WikiProject Film talk page, there are some active editors knowledgable about places to mine sources about film. I'd really suggest leaving a note there, and asking for a hand. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Joe - that sounds like more effort that I'm able to commit. No problem will know for next time. Seems odd that you guys prefer red links - but you know what you're doing - and Wikipedia is a great source - so it's clearly working. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
First, review time was too short
The list was deleted after only 14 days of discussion. I note that an RfD at List of Federal Political Scandals in the United States took two months to resolve. I would liked to have commented but couldn’t .
Second, a warning could have been issued rather than a deletion
Many of the reasons given for deletion were misquotes or misrepresentations of Wiki policy. For instance, the first reason for deetion given was a lack of multiple references, yet WP:BLP is asking only for multiple sources per article, not per item. I quote;
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis mine)
OR
All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article.(emphasis mine)
Multiple sources are of course available for each citation in this article and can be added if you require it. Deletion of the entire piece was not necessary, a warning would have sufficed.
Third, a history of long term harassment
There are now six spinoffs of the original 2004 article List of Federal political scandals of the United States each subdividing and expanding the original subject. List of Federal political scandals of the United States was already nominated for deletion in 26 November 2010. The result of the discussion was delete, which was overturned at DRV. Note that an editor named Collect was active in that discussion and had voted to delete.
Two years later, on 8 August 2012 at a companion to the original, List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, an RfC was begun by Collect which, by redefining the word ‘politician’ would have halved the scope of the article. Administrator User:Jc37 ruled no consensus was reached.
About two years later, on 7 February 2015 another RfC at List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes was again begun by Collect which, (using different terms) by redefining the word ‘politician’ would have again, halved the scope of the article. Administrator User:AlbinoFerret ruled no consensus was reached.
What also may be pertinent is a very long discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence which included contentious editing and wikilawyering and puppetry. I couldn’t follow all of it, but I did find he was blocked as recently as 2 March 2015 for edit warring. (He has quite a history and I can’t tell if he was/is blocked from editing political articles) And for all that Collect himself has not weighed in on this call for deletion.
I also find it interesting that after a six months hiatus, Anythingyouwant suddenly springs back to life and immediately nominates two political articles for deletion. I am no expert on puppets, but I do not think this is a coincidence. Puppets have been noted in all of these discussions, but please note the lack of civility, argumentative style and similar points made by the editors calling for deletion.
If you cannot in good conscious restore the article, or pass it along for further review, could you place a copy of it on my user page? Perhaps it can be rewritten.Polarpark (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Polarpark, as I have explained elsewhere, it is not puppetry, and is just a coincidence (a very minor one at that). But I have been sanctioned for less, so you have that going for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to rescind my decision at AfD, and given the nature of the consensus, I think I'll opt not to draftify it as well, as BLP issues were a concern raised in the discussion. With regard to that, you are welcome to appeal to WP:DRV.
As far as allegations of sockpuppetry, I"m having a great deal of trouble taking this specific allegation seriously, both @Anythingyouwant: and @Collect: have a long history here, and while I've met neither in person, I'd be shocked if they were puppets, their views are in many ways quite distinct, and consistently so over many years. That's not proof, mind you, but nah, really. I doubt it. If you still believe I'm wrong on this point, WP:SPI would be the right venue, not me, for a number of reasons. Friendly advice? Just try DRV. Best of luck, --j⚛e deckertalk23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Support request with team editing experiment project
Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.
Here is a quick example for the Kyrgyzstan - Palestine game which was the first match of the tournament:
In the first match of the final edition of the AFC Challenge Cup was an even affair until the last minute of stoppage time when substitute Abdelhamid Abuhabib struck from a corner to win the game.[1] It was a rather even game till then with Palestine having the best chances, with Hilal Musa having a shot just go over in the last minute of the first half as well in the 50th minute when he was completely unmarked in front of goal but he couldn't direct his shot on target. Palestine had an excellent chance with 20 minutes remaining when Ashraf Nu'man played a perfect pass to Tamer Seyam but Pavel Matiash made a fine save to deny the forward.[2] Kyrgyzstan's best chance came in the first minute of the second half when naturalized striker David Tetteh got his head to a cross but it wasn't the best connection and straight at Ramzi Saleh.[3] Afterwards Palestinian coach Jamal Mahmoud praised his players for never giving up at what he called a very even game, while Kyrgyz coach Sergey Dvoryankov prmossied that the best had yet to be seen from his players and blamed the tropic humidity and heat for his player's performance.[4]
I'm going to decline, but you're welcome to appeal at WP:DRV. The Madivelive sources were in the article at the time of the discussion, which leads me to believe they were in view of the participants in the discussion. I can mail you a copy of one or more of the articles if it would be of help. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk04:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must decline--MUSICBIO 1 isn't about releases by the artist, it's about biographical reportage about the artist. Let me know if I've misunderstood your argument. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk04:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Anoomi
Hi Joe
You was deleted the entry of Anoomi. why?
I don"t understand how to manage here...
I will be glad if you can recover the page of Anoomi
The longer version is that articles on Wikipedia are subject to meeting a standard which is based on the degree of signficant, reliable, independent media coverage they have received. Stuff that the reader would, if they knew the source, agree was neutral, reliable, and arm's length from the topic--like a newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher. The participants in the discussion didn't appear to feel the subject had gotten that degree of coverage. You can read more about the policy about that at WP:GNG.
The discussion participants also raised issues of conflict of interest. I didn't come to an particular conclusion about that, as I didn't need to. But if you are associated with the subject of the article, I'd recommend reading WP:PSCOI, it can be very helpful for people in that situation.
You may also wish to ask any questions you have at the WP:Teahouse. it's a Q&A resource for editors new to Wikipedia's often-confusing ways. I hope it's helpful. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk03:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Request on 18:51:45, 14 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dbadia
Hi, I can't seem to find the concerns that were provided about my article. How can I see what needs to be changed?
Dbadia (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
They're (now, at least) at the top of the article, which was recently restored by Timtrent. Look in the pink box and the comments underneath the pink box there, and let me know if I can explain further. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Joe - thanks for your kind words about the Babe Curran article. I'm new to Wikipedia and am finding things a little daunting; so, the positive response was most welcome. Thank you.
I have also drafted artciles, which are currently under consideration on other Australians, namely: James Frederick Porter, George Porter and George Gribble. And I've drafted an article on George Gabriel Powell, but as he spent the last half of his life in North America, I feel a little out of my depth and would be interested in your comments, particularly as your are from the USA. CheersMPCR (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, some nice work. I took a peek at the article on Gregg, the only thing I noticed was that the conclusion might need to be tweaked, regarding the positivity of the conclusions Generally where we draw conclusions or impart less than cut-and-dried straight-line facts, we err on the side of attributing them as opinions, etc. A lot of my work at AfC is more or less front-line triage, but in terms of getting smart feedback on the quality of articles of the quality you are already producing, the next places you might want to enquire are Wikipedia:Peer review and perhaps after that the whole WP:GA process. Those processes are slow, but really helpful. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk18:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
User Creating Unnecessary FNAF Pages
This user here has been, for no reason, actively creating pages on Wikipedia about Five Nights at Freddy's, and these pages consist almost entirely of irrelevant information and unsourced speculation.
The first two I could find are this one and this one (I made it a redirect link, so you'll have to look at the redirect to actually see what has been going on). I was able to (partially) take care of the latter, which was very short and based entirely on speculation, but I don't even know how to begin with the first one.
I think an admin really needs to step in, because both of those pages are heavily speculation-reliant, poorly written (in some areas), and have no use outside of the game itself. You were the first admin I could think of that has done anything related to FNAF pages before (when you deleted some other page about FNAF Minigames before), so would you consider those pages good candidates for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerwhale24680 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll try and take a look later today, but you may want to consider putting these to AfD and/or putting a note at WP:ANI if I'm unable to. Sorry for the delay. --j⚛e deckertalk15:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, okay. For now I've just been adding redirects towards the article for the game itself, mainly because I'm not too sure how to mark articles for deletion here... Killerwhale24680 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I've been going with, and for now they seem to be working. If another problem arises about this, I'll let you know. Killerwhale24680 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
One More Time: Will You Consider Unblocking Me?
Lukeno94 reverted me on your talk a couple days ago if you didn't notice. He's among my long-term hounders. I see him as an odd hater. He showed up at my RFC/U campaigning to keep me blocked forevermore, basically set up camp there to dispute anyone that wanted to treat me fairly, and commenced to following me around ever since. Anyhow, here is what I wrote.
Hi Joe, I've been falsely blocked as a sockpuppet since 2012. Are you willing to take a look at it? I feel like I've been hounded by persistent cyberbullies and mobbed at WP:AN/ANI without the ability to defend myself.
The policy violation I admit to, after having to endure that stuff and with no official processes realistically available to me, is clearly-identified block evasion by IP. Each time I did it, I signed it as "Colton Cosmic."
Don't believe anything you read about me without giving me a chance to defend it. I once provided good content to Wikipedia for five or six years, and then these people happened to me.
PS: If you find my tone above describing my adversaries a bit judgmental and not strictly civil, I've had to endure a lot, and it's frustration. Actually I shouldn't call them "adversaries," because the relationship is too one-sided. I'd be happy never to have contact with them again.
I'm afraid not, but without prejudice to you looking elsewhere. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but there are a couple specifics here that lead me to believe that I'm the wrong person to be looking into this at this level, e.g., due to my AUSC role. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Request on 04:02:56, 22 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mktkt
Hi Joe, I'd like you to reconsider your decision declining the article. Please note that I'm not affiliated in any ways with Holland Electronics, LLC. I just learned about them and have purchased some of their products as a consumer. I created the article in a very straightforward and minimalistic way, keeping all the rules in mind. I came across with articles under the Manufacturing Companies based in California category with many flags and warnings on their page, yet the pages still exist. A couple of examples are Signet Solar and Aleratec. I don't believe that the page I created deserves to be declined vs. the many other company pages that exist and in some cases include even less verifiable or notable information. Please advise. Thanks! Mktkt (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
First, don't take the bolilerplate about affiliation too personally, the COI links are policy, people should know about them, but they're actually not the key issue, I included those to make sure you knew what our expectations were.
The primary issue that I declined the article for is described in the pink box, but probably very poorly. You appear to be a new editor here, so I'll try and break it down.
The basic "hurdle" that an article topic must clear to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia goes by the word notability, but that term has a very specific and defined meaning in our world, it's not simply a question of whether it seems famous or not.
That basis hurdle states that an article topic must be a topic covered in-depth, by multiple, different sources, each of which has an editorial process, each of which is entirely independent from the subject. Specifically for businesses and other organizations, even articles which provide routine coverage of organizational events are excluded from this.
What does that leave, in practice? Generally that hurdle means you're going to need to find two or more articles which are written in newspapers, magazines, books--things that don't appear to be written directly from press releases, which talk about the subject in detail. I really don't have wiggle room in accepting vs. rejecting an article on this basis, but if you add two such sources to the article and resubmit, it is very likely that you can get an article improved.
You may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful.
If those sorts of sources simply don't exist yet, the community generally believes that there's not enough arm's-length sources to write a truly neutral, fair article on a subject, and that the topic doesn't yet warrant an article.
You may find the Teahouse (WP:Teahouse) helpful for getting another view on all of this, and perhaps ideas for where you can look for additional sources. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk17:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Joe,
Thanks for your reply but with all due respect you only answered part of my question. Why are other articles of manufacturing companies without any verifiable or notable information allowed to remain on Wikipedia, e.g. Aleratec, Signet Solar, while others are not? Is there a non-discrimination policy, and if so where can I find it? In every category I seem to come across with plenty of articles having been unjustifiably approved and published, most of them are clearly meant to serve as advertisements. I understand that I only added a single external link but I'm sure that over time others will add more. After all, Wikipedia articles start with a single individual's contribution and evolve over time by other contributors adding to it (a collaborative effort), wouldn't you agree? Mktkt (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an excellent essay on this issue at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But the executive summary is, there are millions of articles, not every one is looked at at every moment. I wish it were otherwise. --j⚛e deckertalk22:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I really do think you may find some value in asking for assistance at the Teahouse. Sorry if that advice is repetitious. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Unsigned complaint #35
Could you not delete articles I am interested in viewing? Thanks.
Otherwise, please unplug your ethernet cable indefinitely.
First, sign your posts when making them, using -- followed by four tildes, leaving no spaces between them. Thanks!
Second, you appear to believe I am pyschic! I delete lots of articles, based on our policies. The idea that I have any idea which ones you personally are interested in reading is pretty silly, don't you think?
Mr. Decker, I am unsure as to why the sources of my references were not acceptable. Can you please give me some insight into what is needed or provide some assistance?
Sure, our policies around this sort of thing are pretty confusing, particularly the general notability guideline and it's specific siblings for living people and academics, so ... absolutely, I"d be glad to try and break it down.
First let me say that the references do generally meet the test of being reliable in terms of verifying information, that is, I'm not looking for them to be removed. It is that we need two references (perhaps in addition to what you have) that establish that those guidelines are met.
The basic "short form" of these policies is at WP:42, "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.', although even that covers that each of the terms has become a "term of art here" and has understood limits.
So, going through them, references 1 and 2 (patent listings) are not "independent", they're in part written by the subject. Part of the goal of having an independent source is demonstrating that the subject is important, and how to frame what we know about them, through the eyes of a reliable third-party.
Reference 3 would generally not be seen by the community as "significant coverage", not because the achievement isn't signficant, but because the amount of coverage there is small. Think "a couple paragraphs" when you see the phrase "signficant".
Reference 4 doesn't mention the subject.
Reference 5 appears to mention the subject as a bibliographic reference, but again, that isn't "signficant coverage," assume that that term usually means "a couple paragraphs of discussion of the subject."
For academics, we have a few alternatives that someones allow us to have an article, beyond the general notability guideline. That is, if one of these alternatives is met, we just assume that the subject meets the bar even if we haven't found the sort of sources we're looking for above. These are things like "widely cited" [1] shows her work as having received some citations, but not to the degree that WP:PROF criteria C1 would be met. A named chair at a university is also considered sufficient, as would be two full-article length reviews of any books she may have written. Unfortunately I was unable to find any indication that these additional tests were met. But you likely know the subject better in more depth than I do, I often look at hundreds of proposed articles per day, and I wish I could give each more individual attention.
You may also find asking a question or two at the Teahouse, which Is should have linked to on your talk page, to be helpful.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HarryLet us have speaks08:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Writing to see what steps I need to take to get my supervisors page approved and up. I took the same format as another executive of ours and I'm wondering why one got approved and the other didn't?
Please let me know what's necessary to get Miles Beard's page approved.
Hello, Joe Decker. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello I am trying to find song that was posted on Bass test wikipage that has been deleted, can't remember the song name. Do you have link where i can see the context of deleted page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valyngar (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please send me a copy of the list of pangrams as I need it for SW testing. Thank you in advance.
regards joe_products@seznam.cz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.64.102 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The AFD had a workable number of votes, you'll have to actually show sources that meet GNG-type requirements and go beyond routine coverage for me to consider overriding the consensus there. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk16:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
i don't really consider three people a consensus. I think the article itself if I remember had a decent number of sources. But here's two: this and this. Im sure theres more out there though. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 18:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as what you do or do not consider a consensus, Wikipedia precedent differs strongly, and I am bound by the latter.
I'm not sure that that is quite enough for me to override, but you can (as you were told elsewhere) recreate. What I would say is that, given the nature of the USA Today article, editors on Wikipedia are going to be a little hesitant to allow the article. The community prefers a degree of extra caution when dealing with biographies of living people who are accused but not convicted of a crime, WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP may prove worthwhile reading. Best of luck, and apologies for the delay in my response, I've had some signficant family events which have kept me from Wikipedia. --j⚛e deckertalk17:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hanala Sagal
Joe Decker,
Please UNDELETE the Wikipedia for HANALA SAGAL.
All of her identification and links can be confirmed through www.hanala.com
Several things:
First, please sign your posts. At the bottom of the editing window, you will see some text which says " Sign your posts on talk pages", and then shows you the sequence of characters you need to add to get a signature.
Second, please note the request to leave new messages at the bottom of the page, rather than the top. As I indicated, using the "new section" button does this.
Third, unfortunately, Wikipedia biographies must be based on reliable, third-party coverage, self-published material, such as an individual's own web site, do not count toward this critieria. The actual bar is spelled out in more detail at WP:BASIC.
I strongly recommend you contact the Wikipedia Teahouse WP:TEAHOUSE, which is an excellent resource for new editors, before continuing. They are a great group of helpful editors. Best of luck. --j⚛e deckertalk17:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #162
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
A challenge was raised to calculate the degrees of separation to Kevin Bacon. Already one routine has been produced, the next step is to use live data so that we can work on reducing the number of intermediary steps.
Deployed arbitrary access on all Wikivoyage and Wikiquote projects and announced the next ones. See d:Wikidata:Arbitrary access for more.
More fine tuning on entity usage tracking (relevant for arbitrary access)
Fixed bug that sometimes allowed multiple properties to have the same label in a given language (phabricator:T102148)
More work on automatically creating redirects when merging items
More code review of the Wikidata Quality extensions (improved constraint reports and checks against 3rd party databases). Starting to look good for a first deployment.
The sitelinks heading hierarchy changed and includes a “Site links” heading now that is only shown on mobile. This is a DOM change needed to make Wikidata work better on mobile.
Started working on having PHPCS coverage for the major Wikibase.git code base to find small code issues more easily
Prepared Wikibase.git for the DataModel 3.0 switch
Released Wikibase DataModel Serialization 1.4
Released Wikibase Internal Serialization 1.4
New releases of several DataValue components, including DataValues Number 0.5, DataValues JavaScript 0.7 and ValueView 0.14.5
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Users have created more than 5000 articles with the new translation tool. [2]
Editing a page is now faster. This is because some statistics about edit filters were removed. [3]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from 17 June. It will be on all Wikipedias from 18 June (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 16 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Discussions
German language Wikipedia closed its RfC on usage of Wikidata data. As a result Wikidata data can be used on the project as long as it happens through a template and it has a non-Wikimedia reference.
Events/Blogs/Press
Past: Office hour on IRC. We talked about cool things that happened around Wikidata over the past 3 months got an update on upcoming developments and Freebase and more. You can read the log.
Fixed an issue where you'd sometimes select the wrong value when entering a statement unintentionally (phabricator:T98471)
Switched the whole code base to make use of DataModel 3.0
The concept of “claims” no longer exists in Wikibase, as all places in the software work with statements. We are making this more and more explicit in the code.
More work on getting the Wikibase Quality extensions ready for deployment. They'll improve constraint checking and provide checks against 3rd party databases.
Special:UnconnectedPages had to be reworked (thanks Amir!) because of huge performance issues. Because of this it loses some functionality (being able to specify where the list starts and limiting the list to pages that have local interwiki links). We're working on bringing functionality back without the performance penalty.
Enabled arbitrary access on arwiki, cawiki, eswiki, huwiki, kowiki, rowiki, ukwiki, viwiki, and usage tracking on dewiki, ruwiki, cswiki and all s3 wikis. (ruwiki and cswiki get arbitrary access on June 23)
Finishing work on improved handling “invalid” values and statements with deleted properties.
Small breaking DOM change: Wikibase no longer adds its own h1 tag but uses MediaWiki's default .firstHeading element. (phabricator:T93534)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Some wikis can now be used only with HTTPS. This includes the English, Russian and Chinese Wikipedias, among others. Soon all wikis will use only HTTPS for all users. [9][10]
You can't use HTTPS wikis with Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP. You need to use another browser. [11]
Problems
On June 15, search was broken on all wikis for several hours. [12][13][14]
Many Labs tools were broken for several days. Almost all of them are back now. They may be missing some data for the last 10 days. [18][19][20]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from June 23. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 24. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 25 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 23 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Greetings! You may wish to read the template page at {{recent death}}, which states in pertinent part, "This template warns our readers that the information presented in the article may not be final due to missing/unpublished/uncertain information about a recently deceased person, and that readers should therefore be cautious about the content presented. This is generally true for all of our articles, but in cases of extraordinary public attention that risk is especially high. As such, it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again. Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person, as that would defeat the template's purpose." —ATinySliver/ATalkPage05:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, my action is based on WP:IAR, but you're right about what the policy says. You may not have been around for our false reports for Giffords death, and one or two things strike me as concerning in the pattern of sources that are and are not reporting Horner's actual death here. That's why I invoked IAR. My preference is to leave that for another hour or two, but if you feel I'm mistaken, revert me with my blessing, I won't edit war. --j⚛e deckertalk05:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely understand your motivation; I've seen happen exactly what you're talking about. The template's a different story; it doesn't tell editors that someone (may have) recently died; it tells editors that the article is volatile because someone may have recently died. Thanks, meantime, for your blessing; I came here per BRD. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage05:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Upcoming: Wikimania. There will be several talks and workshops related to Wikidata. Say hi at the "Ask Us Anything" session for Wikidata if you're there.
Machine readable versions (in various formats) of Wikibase entities will be advertised in their page heads as alternate link. (phabricator:T96298)
Fixed property label on item pages not scrolling anymore (phabricator:T94588)
More work on getting the Wikibase Quality extensions ready for release. The part doing constraint violation checks should go to test.wikidata.org next week. The part doing checks against 3rd party databases will still take a bit longer but is also shaping up nicely.
Made it possible to create items even when another user is mass-creating items (phabricator:T103796)
Bene* worked more on making Wikidata work nicely on mobile
Fixed weird issue with cursor jumping around in sitelink input field (phabricator:T103489)
Fixed an issue where it was not possible to edit a statement after you removed its only reference (phabricator:T103603)
Lydia will be traveling for much of July. Expect her to be a bit less responsive during that time.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Jubilee Project, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
When you read a page on the mobile site, you can now see a link to go to its talk page. [23]
The code coloring tool has changed. You can now use many more languages. It now also works on mobile. [24][25][26]
You can look at a new site to learn how to reuse data from Wikimedia sites. [27]
Problems
JavaScript was broken on some wikis due to a code error. VisualEditor and other tools that use JavaScript were broken. [28]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from June 30. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 1. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 2 (calendar).
You can now use a tool in VisualEditor to add and edit code in color. [29]
When you edit a sentence in the Translate tool, it can show you older translations. They help you save time if they look alike. The older translations should now work better. If you see problems, you should report them. [30]
If you are an admin or have other special rights, you now need a strong password. [31]
Bot and JavaScript coders: The old continuation mode of the API for action=query doesn't work any more. [32]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 30 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future
When you create a new account, it will also create one on Meta-Wiki and mediawiki.org. [33]
