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'm not in a position to mediate this at the moment. Without having a chance to read the subject in full, I'd recommend walking away for a bit, and then if necessary, pursing whatever the next appropriate step in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Also? In general, if you feel you have problems with other editors, to the extent that you have to report behavior elsewhere, you'll end up needing to take it to a neutral noticeboard, not a specific admin such as myself. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk00:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to mediate the subject under discussion, only the issue of this highly involved editor collapsing the entire thread and declaring it closed (after one day of discussion). His behavior and block log speaks for itself. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
No. Also, the way you're describing this, and the way you're avoiding Wikipedia's standard dispute resolution process, would likely prejudice your case were I to look into it. But I won't, because there are appropriate channels for your complaint, as I have already indicated, and my talk page is not one of them. --j⚛e deckertalk00:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that this anon IP is advocating a violation of basic Wikipedia policy: adding knowingly-incorrect figures to an article on the basis of an alleged 'precedent'. Multiple editors have pointed out that this is untenable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've rejected any involvement in whatever dispute this is, that is, for the record, without prejudice to either side. I'm just skipping it. Take it elsewhere, folks. Thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Tried posting this a few minutes ago... wouldn't go through. As you can see, the editor is completely ignoring the issue at hand (the collapse and inappropriate behavior). OK Joe, thanks. I thought I was doing the nice thing by not initially pursuing a formal, harsh procedure first and instead asking an admin to just let the editor know what they're doing is inappropriate. But if you say I need to go to the extreme measure first, I certainly will. I will pursue as you advised. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
JSTOR
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.
Hi, I am writing to ask you to consider to undelete the page of Jón Pauli Olsen, if possible. He is now manager of the Faroe Islands women's national football team.[1] The team just won 6-0 against Luxembourg tonight (friendly match).[2] Does the fact that he is manager of a national team (women) qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia? As far as I can see you deleted the page some months ago. He became manager of the women's national team in September 2012. Kind regards EileenSanda (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, that sounds like a clear case for reinstatement/recreation, under part 1 of Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL#Association_football. I've restored the article on that basis, and would greatly appreciate it if you would include the updates and the references in the reinstated article. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I continue to be amazed, and humbled, by just how much drama the accent issue has continued to create. And I'm honestly lacking for a constructive response. *sigh* --j⚛e deckertalk18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Being fairly new to Wikipedia editing, I'm slightly puzzled by why I got e-mail about the page being created, since it's existed for quite some time. :) Seanette (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That's mysterious to me, too. In the last few minutes I added semi-protection to the article, but that didn't delete or recreate it. Given the timing, I'd imagine that ... somehow ... my actions were related to the email you received. But, having been around here for seven years, I'm a bit clueless about precisely how. :) Let me look around at the logs a bit more, but I'm really confused why anything would be sending you email at all. --j⚛e deckertalk22:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I do have my watchlist set to send me notification e-mails, so that part didn't confuse me at all :). What did was the "creation" of a page I know has existed for quite some time. Seanette (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I got a buck that says there's a bug in that feature somewhere and it confused my protection change with article creation. I'll see if I can replicate it and file a bug. --j⚛e deckertalk22:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure! I was easily able to reproduce the problem, and it turns out it's a known issue : T44457 Thanks for asking, this is how we figure out we have problems. :) Have a great weekend! --j⚛e deckertalk22:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
historic
I don't think there's a close paraphrasing problem here. We could simply say "police described the allegations as historic". However, I would want to slap the police spokesmen for his poor use of English. He, of course, means "historical", as in "not current". This is one of those cases where accurately quoting the source could mislead the reader, so I agree with your omission.--Scott Mac19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Cool. You're almost certainly right about my paraphrasing concern, it's a very short phrase. I'd just considered it a bit of extra weight toward the word removal. Thanks for the note! --j⚛e deckertalk19:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
ref: Paul Barresi wikipedia page. Sorry, but Im clueless as to how to reach an editor to make accurate changes. The page credits me at the start for being in a 1972 gay classic porn called LA PLAYS ITSELF. This is crazy. I was not in the porn industry until 1976. Please correct the chronology. I believe LA PLAYS ITSELF was 1978. And I do not recall ever being in this film. Paul Barresi
Hi Paul, I left a note about this over at Talk:Paul Barresi, I did find an old source that has someone with your name associated with that '72 film, and it's from a 1994 magazine, so I'm trying to figure out what's really going on there. Most of the stuff on that film that I can find isn't particularly reliable, and I wasn't able to track down a copy of it on-line. The 1994 Film Review magazine that makes the claim you were in that film is here: [3] --j⚛e deckertalk05:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Joe, I see that you did an early close on that edit-warring article with the BLP issues. That was bold! It was also the exact right thing to do. You ROCK! --Sue Rangell✍ ✉22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Your article ended up being deleted by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" with a different reason, you'll have to ask that administrator on their talk page at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I can, however, give you some advice which may help you get a more positive response. First, it will help that administrator know that you meet our general notability guideline if you can show him or her at least two reliable newspaper, magazine, or book discussions about you that were written independently of you (not just republished press releases, etc.). Click on that link above to get a fuller explanation of that requirement. I should also mention that, while it happens a lot, Wikipedia generally discourages people writing about themselves, but you may find additional advice on doing so at this link: Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating_an_article_about_yourself. Sorry I can't be of more help, best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk15:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
could you explain this edit? the categories are for the template, not for the articles transcluding the templates, which is why the categories are inside of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. by adding the {{main other}} you have effectively removed the template from a template category, which is counter productive. I am assuming this was a mistake, so I reverted your edit. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
again, with your changes to Template:Singapore MRT stations. please pay attention to the difference between the categories inside of the <noinclude>...</noinclude> and those outside of these tags. per WP:TEMPLATECAT, we should not even have this problem, but so perhaps create a list of the ones that you changed so they can be cleaned up in a proper way (i.e., adding the category to the articles and removing it from inside the <includeonly>...</includeonly>)? Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look when I'm back at a real computer at an hour, I see you've reverted (which is fine). Seems I botched it up. The intent was to avoid including article categories when the template was transcluded by user/user talk space pages. I'll take a longer look, and make sure the other one or two of these I did get fixed or reverted. My apologies. --j⚛e deckertalk23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was downright stupid of me. Presuming I understand you correctly. Do feel free to glance at this, which should, I think, be correct, and I believe there's a place for an appropriate fix for userspace inclusion yet to be made at Template:Chūō East Line at well. --j⚛e deckertalk01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
yes, that's fine. eventually I would like to see these fixed properly by removing the entire auto-category stuff per WP:TEMPLATECAT, but that will take a bot for many of these given the number of transclusions. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather see that too, but I'm personally thinking it might be a lost cause, or at least a drama-fest to start enforcing. Given some of the technical problems with template-based cat inclusion (there's a years-old bug relating tot this that's broken enough that I wrote a bot to deal with it's effects on one maint. category), ... Anyway, thanks, I'll stop prattling on now.. :) --j⚛e deckertalk21:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi JoeDecker... about your relisting... as far as I intend, per WP:RELIST, relisting should happen "if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy". I don't think this AfD falls under any of these two circumstances. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going with the second, although I admit I'm interpreting WP:RELIST wording somewhat less strictly than you do. In my view, the key policy issues identified in the discussion are WP:LASTING, WP:EFFECT. It is obvious that those tests essentially require precognition (or, more seriously, subjective judgment) in the face of the future results of evolving events. A handful of participants have directly discussed those issues (your own !vote being a clear exception), however, many of those who have have (and who argue for deletion or merge) did so in view of a smaller (that is, a couple days younger), range of sources. The appropriate weighting of earlier !votes discussing LASTING/EFFECT on those points is fairly ambiguous, as a result. I considered a "keep" close based on a perception of shifting views towards that result, likely based on a shifting universe of sources, but considered it premature. I considered a "no consensus" close, but felt this a better option. This is a case where I should have provided a relist staement, however, and I will correct that oversight. And if you think I've overstepped, I'd be delighted if you wanted to ask DRV, no matter the outcome. --j⚛e deckertalk20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anders Agensø, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xtra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for your support during my "block". It wasn't very pleasant, though it seems to have done me some good. I'm not sure I really deserve a barnstar for it. I appreciate the revert on my talk page while I was gone, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Uhhh... apparently I'm still a little scrambled from my break. I got you mixed up with Ian.thomson. Too many open windows. =\ -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
*grin* No worries about the mix-up. As far as the original issue, yeah, I do believe that it's important that we sysops be held to higher standards, and I think you found a very stand-up way to make that point. Now let's get back to building an encyclopedia! --j⚛e deckertalk16:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
For all you do, Joe Decker. We need more Wikipedians like you :)
Sue Rangell✍ ✉ is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Holiday greetings Mr. Decker! Thank you for your concern regarding the accuracy on my niece's page. Unfortunately her page has been vandalized several times, we have done our own investigation and came up with some names of some Salvadoran women that appear to be very jealous of my niece and keep harassing and bullying her all over the internet, and that is the reason why they keep changing my niece's information, like her DOB, they are trying to prove something. I would appreciate it if you leave it as it it. The creator of the page is intelectual123.
Thanks, and I appreciate you trying to improve the article (which in many ways you have), but some of your changes are causing issues as well. Removing categories from an article is a real problem, particularly the living people category. Not providing solid reliable sources (as determined by WP's policies) for personal information, such as birth date, is also a problem. I'm tempted to suggest we should remove the birthdate/year entirely until that can be resolved. Removing PERSONDATA information is a problem. And removing maintenance templates without correcting the underlying problems they reflect is an issue. So I very much appreciate the kind words above, but I stiil need to make sure we work within our policies and guidelines here. Thanks for understanding. --j⚛e deckertalk19:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
User with an offensive name for personal attacking
There's a user that goes by the name: AntiBlueMario1016 that basically shares the same name as my account, but just with the word: "Anti" added in, to make it seem to be made for a no greater purpose then to simply personally attack one individual, and it seems that I am the individual targeted. Wikipedia doesn't allow accounts with names that are created just to personally attack, offend and upset an individual user. Although it has not been used in a long period of time, looking at the page's history will display that the page was made to offend me and expose privacy of me as well. This is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. Please help on removing the name of that user off, since we can't tolerate such users to create account names made to just offend those online. Although sadly, a group of these "personal haters" also put up an Encyclopedia Dramatica page about me, and it's also invading my privacy as well. Please help on seeing if there's a way to remove that as well. Thank you. —BlueMario1016 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
How annoying! I've indef blocked the editor and RevDel'd one revision of his user page that contains some of your other accounts on other sites. The account can't be (so far as I know) entirely deleted, it is technically possible for a 'crat to change the username, but I can't do it myself. You could try asking at WP:CHU but I haven't worked in that area before so I don't know if they'd change that account name for you. --j⚛e deckertalk16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The account is pretty much dead anyway, so I don't think we have to worry. But if the user ever comes to personally attack my page and edit my things, you may have to ban this user, for not only having a name to personally attack a user, but by also vandalizing.
Yeah, I'd need to file the appropriate ANI etc., but yeah, I won't be too surprised if this eventually requires additional action, just disappointed. --j⚛e deckertalk18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
BLPN
As an anon user, I can't create AfDs, so the best I can do is to try to label them. So you're saying I can create a BLP and put in an external link that says that the person exists and that's sufficient to avoid BLPPROD? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
More or less. "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag.", at WP:BLPPROD#Nominating.
The criteria are intended to be narrow and objective, in the same way speedy deletion is intended to be narrow and objective, with anything the slightest bit grey going to AfD. (And in fact, the community barely managed consensus even for that.)
If you would like to file an AfD, it's usually possible to get someone to file one for you by proxy. I've done it several times, just point at the article and give me your nomination statement. It is generally expected that you'll have made some attempt to look for sources yourself, of course, per WP:BEFORE. But unless the nomination seems pointy or non-sensical, I'm usually willing to file AfDs for users editing via IPs. (Of course, you could also make an account, which would give you slightly more privacy as well, since non-account editing exposes your IP address.) --j⚛e deckertalk00:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Na Kyung-won, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Na (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I've nominated an article that you contributed to be part of DYK. This nomination is transcluded for ease of use, especially since the title is too long to type in or memorize. You can still improve the article while nominated. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
When you nominate a page for deletion via Twinkle, the AfD notice is placed on the article before the AfD is created; this leaves a "this article's entry" redlink in the notice itself; given how many AfD candidates are created by new or new-ish users, I imagine that this could be somewhat confusing - mousing over "this article's entry", only to be informed that "this page does not exist" (although, of course, it does). I've been meaning to ask one of my programmer wikifriends if they'd be willing to write a bot script to purge all recently-AfD-nominated articles (or XfD in general, I suppose), only to stumble on your userpage recently, and find that you already have a bot that does it! It's obviously not a major issue, but if we can make a new user's experience here even slightly less confusing, we should. If I understand your description of the bot correctly, all you'd have to do is add the various XfD pages to the list of pages it traverses. Or would we have to create categories for XfD-nominated pages (which could probably be accomplished by a simple consensus at BRFA)? Anyways, what do you think? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler)04:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've seen the redlinks and I think it'd be great to find a fix for 'em. Let me look later today for possible other ways of doing it--I would have no objection to extending JNB to another set of pages, there may just be a better way to get the same result: or a better one, right now, the Null Bot only runs more-or-less daily. --j⚛e deckertalk16:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it would work, kinda. I could sort through the proper directory and purge it all. But I doubt we'd get consensus to run it constantly, it's kinda an ugly hack anyway. What would seem preferable to me is if we could get Twinkle itself to do this right, but I haven't quite sorted through Twinkle enough to figure out why it doesn't already work. Humph. --j⚛e deckertalk05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that was an error. (I've been fixing a very large number of category-inclusion-in-userspace problems reading through the Polluted Categories listing, I'll go back and see if there was another issue there.) Again, thanks!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Darcey-Alden until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll notify the guy who actually started the article, I just put in a redirect after a previous deletion-by-PROD. And maybe stop in for an opinion, too. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk05:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maxwell v. Dow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs)02:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the block and salt of the userpage, but this sandbox page should also be salted in view of its abuse by those various IPs.--Jasper Deng(talk)06:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Done I don't know if that will really solve the larger problem of any subpages, but no harm in a little salt there. Thanks for the report! --j⚛e deckertalk06:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Since I was not the person with inappropriate syntax who placed the category n the talk page your edit summary, while amusing, should really be in a note addressed to the person who wrote it there. It does rather look as if you are telling me off :). It would have been just as simple to remove it quietly, the more so since the person who caused this to happen was not me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm really sorry that came off as snarky, I've been doing a thousand of the darn things clearing out Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories, and I've tried to settle down to an edit summary I could put in automatically and not be too bitey to the newbies, and provide a little of an explanation. I can see on reflection where it'd come off as pretty snarky to established users, though, which wasn't my intent. I'm sorry about that, and I'll try and apply a little more clue going forward. Thanks for your good humor! --j⚛e deckertalk00:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries :) I never noticed that page had grabbed itself a cat anyway :) The edit summary just needs an "If some other editor did it yadda yadda yadda" part Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't found a source that says it directly, but the timing of the case might be a direction to look in, the FFDCA had really only taken effect as of the start of 1940, so this was one of the first cases prosecuted under it, and *handwaving* one of the first times the federal government had any effect on quack medical remedies. I'll see if I can look more through stuff later today. --j⚛e deckertalk17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
E.g., "One of the first official actions of the FDA was filing the lawsuit 'United States vs. 11 .... blah blah blah. I don't think that' quite the right wording, but you get where I"m going. --j⚛e deckertalk20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I have found several places over the years where I've made the same mistake myself. It happens, just wanted to explain why I undid it. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk03:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Why, bless your heart! By an odd coincidence, I've got a copy of the Barrows book waiting at the central Milwaukee Public Library for me to pick up. --Orange Mike | Talk17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I was utterly, completely confused. I could swear I saw something to that effect yesterday, and I was clearly and completely wrong. My apologies. --j⚛e deckertalk21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries, perhaps one was created and has been deleted under a variant of her name - nothing to apologise for - ta for the clarification - Youreallycan21:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Hey Joe, i edited the cully symington page by deleting a few things. He asked me to do so because his current work is all he cares to mention. thanks for keeping an eye on it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticus5758 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I see another editor has reinstated the material as well, I don't see any direct reason the material is problematic, can you explain why Symington wants it removed? --j⚛e deckertalk01:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Joe. Your note at WP:RPP says you semi'd it for a week, but it looks as if it actually got the PC treatment :( Your choice, of course, (although I always prefer the former) but I wonder whether your finger slipped or you changed your mind. (Either way, I have serious egg on my face, having somehow missed the fact that I was requesting protection on a vandalized version :p ). Anyway, thanks for the quick response. Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I note that you were the closing admin for the page Rutvik Oza, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutvik Oza, which discussion resulted in a deletion. The page has recently been recreated at Rutvik Oza (mathematician) with substantially the same problems and sourcing as in the deleted article, and SPAs for the primary contributors. Would re-nominating the article for deletion be the next step, or is there an admin process for deleting recreated articles? Thanks, Dialectric (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
When it's so clearly a copy of an article deleted by discussion, it's eligible for speedy deletion, criteria G4. You can just mark an article of that kind with {{db-repost}}, and it'll get deleted pretty quick if appropriate. I've gone ahead and made the deletion, and protected Rutvik Oza (mathematician) from recreation, and I'll look and see if there's anything else effective I might be able to do to keep this from popping up at future titles. Thanks for the catch! --j⚛e deckertalk19:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that the article was deleted, but the participating editors involved unanimously felt that the article did not meet our notability guidelines, in particular, WP:LISTN. The notability of list intersections is, as is mentioned in that policy, not particularly cleanly defined by the community. I'm not an expert in this particular subject matter, but if you are, a common way of showing notability in lists is to find reliable secondary sources which are about and go into depth on the precise topic, in this case, 2012 Tamil Soundtracks. By "this precise topic", it would have to be articles that aren't just about a particular 2012 Tamil soundtrack, or a 2012 soundtracks in general, or what have you. I'm personally open to the idea that those articles exist, and if a couple of them did, I'd support recreation of your article without review at WP:DRV. If there are such articles, would you be open to doing a draft that demonstrates that in your Sandbox? --j⚛e deckertalk16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The Macedonian First League was recently added to the list of non-fully pro leagues at WP:FPL, so I'm going through and PROD'ing articles which don't meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. As a result I've tagged quite a few articles for deletion and am unsure as to which one you mean. In any case, I appreciate your input. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in the article regarding Rutvik Oza. The article has been resent for submission and is available at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rutvik_Oza. It has now been supported with adequate references. I would be thankful to you if you verify the same. THANKS! BEST STAR 907 (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2013 (IST)
Hi, BEST STAR 907! it appears that your article was declined again. The issue the reviewer raised largely revolves around the "reliability" of your sources. Wikipedia articles generally must be based in sources that meet our WP:RS criteria, which generally revolves around newspapers, magazines, and books that are published by reputable organizations and which have a complete editorial process. While this does not rule out web sources, it does rule out self-published sources, such as this, and probably this, general web sites that don't have an editorial process such as this and this. I understand that it takes some time to make sense of our WP:RS policy if you haven't been working with it before. The only source that I've been able to find that meets WP:RS about Oza only mentions him in passing, which is not enough in the way of sources to meet our general notability guideline. However, I may have missed sources that would meet these criteria. I'm sorry, but without further sources that meet WP:RS and that talk in depth about Oza, it's unlikely that we'll be able to have an article on this interesting fellow. I'm very sorry. --j⚛e deckertalk18:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Guidice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cnilep (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Joe, please accept my thanks for your kind words and support during my RfA. The objective evaluations of my work by you and several other editors meant a lot. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thank you, that's very kind, given that I notice you'd tried to work to improve the article. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. --j⚛e deckertalk07:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Heterophobia. 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.
Thanks for the note. It would have been appropriate, however, to discuss the deletion with me before filing for DRV, as noted in the first instruction on that page. --j⚛e deckertalk23:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
RubinBot is a known issue (see Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Wikidata), by doing a handful of articles already on my watchlist (essentially, those I created and one I wanted to do a null edit on anyway), I'm hoping to be able to identify any more slipping by the anti-interwikibot edit filter that's, apparently, already been created. :-) --j⚛e deckertalk21:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected.
There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date.
The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics.
We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia.
The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page.
If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area.
Dear Joe, I recently decided to do some work on the Home Care Assistance page. I was surprised to see that it didn't exist, and that it had been deleted. I've added some good sources and think it's newsworthy. I'm going to expand it soon but wanted to get some of your input before I do so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp666 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi JackP666. Thanks for helping to try and improve our encyclopedia! I haven't had a chance to look at this much, but I can provide a little bit of background. The discussion that led to the article being deleted you can read here. The primary issue was the sourcing behind Wikipedia's so-called "notability" rules, which can be found at WP:GNG. Roughly speaking, you want two or more sources, both of which go into depth about the subject (the article that mentions the company twice in passing but doesn't talk much about it doesn't count), from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source (generally a mainstream magazine, published book, or newspaper that *isn't* just a warmed over press release) --the Huffington post blog entry isn't going to help you because of that, and which is written independently from the subject (again, a problem with the blog entry from HuffPo.) And, the article should be written primarily from what those articles that meet all there criteria say, not from personal knowledge, although a few uncontroversial details can usually be filled in from more direct sources (e.g., the year the company was founded, etc.) If the article is nominated for a deletion discussion again, I hope that this explanation will provide helpful. --j⚛e deckertalk05:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Paul Barresi
Dear Joe, Sorry for this, but I have no other way to reach out to you. For some unknown reason, the editor recently on the Paul Barresi page, slaughtered your accurate and unbiased fine work and decided, as have many other editors favoring the gay aspects of my career, to discount the fact, I was a heterosexual porn star and my first on camera xxx appearance was Coed Fever. Furthermore, this editor who changed much of what you wrote, says I was in an experimental porn film called LA Plays Itself, which I was not. My first film was The Wild Party, shortly after I got out of the military, followed by Playgirl, then Coed Fever and many other straight vids. Maybe you can explore the reason as to why the unfair and inaccurate reporting continues. Moreover, why the page fashions me as a gay porn star, when in fact, I was a straight porn star. My list of credits as a porn star in the straight xxx arena speaks for itself and should be noted first at bottom of page. Also, the list of credits, in the gay porn vids, says I appeared in them, suggesting in sex roles. If I appeared in any gay videos I produced and directed, it was in a speaking role only. Anyway, hope you can help. Regards, Paul Barresi
Thank you. Because i was involved there previously in an administrative capacity, I'm going to not get involved in the new discussion, and let other more uninvolved editors make their case. In terms of making your case, you may wish to review WP:IRS and WP:GNG. Have a great day, and best of luck!! --j⚛e deckertalk15:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yousuf-e Payambar (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Times (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Done excuse my talk page stalking, you may want to try out this script importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]], it highlights any links to dab pages, I find it very helpful. See you around, J04n(talk page)11:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind reply here. I thought I would drop a question here. How can you always be sure that articles from different language Wikipedias can be unambiguously matched? My initial thought is: well, it can't be so simple... Is there a way in Wikidata to match two articles in one language to a single one in another language? For example, for the English "trade secret" article, you have matched it to the French "secret commercial" rather than "secret industriel". But how do you know that this is more appropriate? Maybe it means that the two French articles should be merged. Maybe it means that there is unequivocal match. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure!
Yep, you are exactly right here, there are cases where there is no possibility of an unambiguous match, where the way one language and culture frames a category is just a tiny bit different than another. Of course, if those framings are very different, we usually just end up with separate Wikidata entries, and if they're very similar, they're usually mapped together, but there are always going to be grey areas. Ontology is messy, sadly.
With regard to trade secret, I went back and looked more, and decided to punt this one upstairs for a community discussion at d:Wikidata:Interwiki_conflicts#Q602938. Merging is definitely one option, I'm just not fluent enough in French to really be sure I have the smell of the distinction being made between the terms in the two FRWIKI articles. --j⚛e deckertalk15:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Null Bot Main Page purge
Please see WP:BOTREQ#Purging Main Page at regular intervals. Given the discussion since your last comment there, it seems very likely, to me at least, that it would be absurd to request bot approval for a purge at 15 minute intervals. But I would much rather this be part of an admin's documented bot than something that might go away if I get hit by a bus. Please advise at WP:BOTREQ. Thanks. Neo Poz (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at AlanM1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hey, thanks. I see you're talking to MZMcBride, who is going to be of far more help than I'll be able too. Thanks for all your efforts! --j⚛e deckertalk01:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I have made necessary changes to the article Rutvik Oza. I think it has now been supported with adequate references. I would be thankful to you if you verify the same. THANKS! BEST STAR 907talk 23:00, 22 February 2013 (IST)
Hi, sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I'll let one of the folks well-versed in AfC reviewing give the news, but I still believe, as we discussed before, that some of those aren't really up to what we ask for at WP:RS, although several look better. Also, you've got some formatting errors, if you want to use the syntax that uses square brackets and has a URL to begin with, you'll need to be sure to include the http:// or https:// on each URL, or it won't work properly. Hope this helps! --j⚛e deckertalk02:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Joe,
I am owner of Bloomex, the floral company operating in Canada, Australia and USA. We employ 200+ people and do quite a volume in floral deliveries.
We have an article on Wikipedia, which does not reflect the truth about company or operations mainly due to efforts of CliffC and bots he creates. Any success to combat him are ineffecgtive due to his experience as Wikipedia editor and obvious luck of interest from Wikipedia public to Bloomex.
You are very trusted and experienced editor and
I would like to ask your help in either removing article completely or leaving it with set of true facts reflecting many years of work, customers we served and dedication and hard work of employees.
Sincerely
Hi Dimitri, ... I'm afraid I won't be able to help this time around, I'm about to be away from Wikipedia for a long enough period of time that you'll probably want to look elsewhere. I certainly hear your concerns about WP:UNDUE, I expect that discussing this and reaching a conclusion will take more time than I can provide. Best of luck, --j⚛e deckertalk21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I know you're away, but before you get trapped into his scheme of misusing WP:UNDUE, note that a vast vast majority of sources only cover the controversy. In this way, it would be not giving due weight to not have a majority of the article about the controversies. If you'd like to see my longer response, it's here. Thanks. gwickwiretalkediting21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I overspoke--the concern the original poster was expressing was more or less an UNDUE complaint, as it was written. I intended to express empathy for it, rather than endorsing it, I'd want to spend some real time looking at what information exists and such before I made any conclusions whatsoever there. If I get more time away from driving and sleeping the next few days, I'll take a look, thanks. Cheers, --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If you don't want to, you don't have to. I can assure you that there is no issue, other than the user wishing to have the controversies his company has erased from the internet. That won't happen. He doesn't listen, and forum shops for other people to try to get a favorable response when he's been told by many now that it's not going to happen. Thanks though :) Have a nice trip. gwickwiretalkediting03:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
