User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Milanov -- double relist bug

Greetings. I found this AfD via Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old--the reason it had gone on for over 30 days was because you relisted it on April 16 shortly after someone else had done the same. Due to an apparent bug in the automated tools, this caused it to be commented out of the April 16 log and not re-added (diff). If this happens again, please be sure to revert yourself on the log page as well as the discussion page. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, thanks for letting me know I've missed it. --joe decker^talk 19:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Null edits

Hi, could your bot perform a null edit on every page transcluding any of {{Infobox song}}, {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox album}}? This is for updating the tracking categories properly before Infobox single is merged into the former. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Practically speaking, nope. Doing a true NULLEDIT that would fix this would pollute the article history and recent changes list something awful, causing enormous community consternation if it were allowed, which is why the Bot Approvals Group would not be likely to approve the task. See the BAG approval discussions for task 1 for some of the background on that. I did make an attempt when I was asked about this earlier to see if what Null Bot currently does its other tasks (not null edits, but purge with the "noforcelinkupdate" option), would work, and I'm still a surprised that it didn't. I want to look at that again when I have some time--perhaps I missed something, I expect it boils down to this being the first case where we're trying to force revaluation of Lua rather than reexecution of classic Wikimacro language, but I don't completely understand how or why yet. --joe decker^talk 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

How would this pollute article history or recent changes? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

[hmmm, might be misinformed, hold on..] --joe decker^talk 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Sorry for the distraction and delay on my part, I should be able to put more time into this tomorrow. I think, however, as I look into this, you might not even need my help here.

Actually editing a template or it's sub-templates, updating infobox song to point to infobox single and the like, should I believe force updates up the chain (although perhaps delayed for minutes or even small numbers of hours if the job queue is busy. Moreover, it appears that one can now kick the cache of all the articles that transclude a template via API calls that look like, well, to give a URL-based example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_single&action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate

If that works, that'd let us avoid a lot of process.

The question really is, will simply changing your templates, and/or that API call, do what you need? (If it needs to be done periodically, I'll still need to go the Bot Approvals Group, but it would still be helpful to know if that API call actually solves the particular issue you're concerned about. Thanks again for your patience. --joe decker^talk 03:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the URL is going to work for tracking categories, unless there's a delay which I haven't noticed. Category:Interlanguage link template link number had a sorting change in January (numbers to letters), and several hundred items are still sorted under 0–9 after I purged {{Interlanguage link}} using the link. It shouldn't be necessary, however, as all the affected templates will probably be substituted by AnomieBOT in one go (and any odd parameters should be tracked by this tool reliably enough). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035:: Thanks, it's not you, the recursivelinkupdate function doesn't appear to be working in your other example. Weird. (I'm playing with it now, so you may see your example category get cleared up as I test, but you are correct, that wasn't working in that example.). What's y'alls timing on the template switchover? I'm happy to file a BRFA for a one-time run (if necessary) following the template cutover. --joe decker^talk 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably sometime after June 1, since the tool in the link above only updates on the first of each month. A BRFA could potentially be necessary for fixing incorrect table nesting, but for most other things AnomieBOT can substitute them all again for mass edits (the templates substituted all return themselves, with the exception of three wrappers). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, do let me know if something gets stuck, I doubt this will prove contentious at BAG, I'll be happy to make this go. --joe decker^talk 13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot 13, has been speedily approved. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --joe decker^talk 07:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Devin Clark ==== Your BRFA

Hi Joe, noted on copyright comment. rephrased and resubmitted. Semper liber (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --joe decker^talk 16:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

AfC of BLP approved despite no references?

I was surprised to see Orlin D. Velev approved as a BLP with no inline references, in fact no references at all? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear ya. The EL to his group, which is named for him, confirms that he's got a named professorship at a university, which meets WP:PROF 5. It's not at all what I"d prefer in the way of referencing, but it is a source good enough to verify the claim that demonstrates his notability. (His publication record, with an h-index in excess of 60, would also be taken as separate evidence of notability if it came to AfD, as meeting WP:PROF 1). --joe decker^talk 16:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm in no doubt of his notability, but it seems to fly in the face of BLP. I would hope someone will dive in and add some inline refs. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You'd think? But WP:MINREF by itself doesn't preclude unreferenced BLPs, and BLPPROD has resisted several attempts (attempts I've backed) to apply it to articles even with only, say, a link to a person's twitter. Our policies are ... wacky. --joe decker^talk 16:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

18:47:01, 30 May 2017 review of submission by Musicwest

• Musicwest (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Melody Diachun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe,

Thanks for reviewing my draft. I submitted my draft before adding any references but I have since added references. Question: Is it necessary to reference each sentence even if quoting the same source, or may I continue as I have been doing in the new version?

Thank you for your time, Melody

@Musicwest: Not every sentence.

The specific policy about what needs a reference at a bare minimum is at WP:MINREF and may also be helpful.

Generally references are more likely to be requested where a signficant positive or negative claim is made, and places where someone is described in positive or negative subjective adjectives, well, that should usually not be in Wikipedia's voice, but in the voice of a source. E.g., Wikipedia shouldn't say "Star Wars is a fantastic movie.", but instead say "Roger Ebert said Star Wars was a fantastic movie." (with a reference), or "Star Wars is generally regarded as a historic movie" (with a reliable references that make that statement).

Hope this helps! --joe decker^talk 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thorbjörnsson

Thank you for approving the Thorbjörnsson page. Could you look at the request I made on that page with a <!-- hidden comment -->? 208.95.51.38 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirect added -- I'm not sure it was strictly necessary as a search (before I added the redirect) for Þorbjörnsson went to the disambiguation page (probably some cleverness in the Wikimedia search function), but it may help populate Google search results to Wikipedia.)

(And I'm familiar with Þ and Icelandic patronymics, I've had the pleasure of eleven weeks in that country in the last several years. Delightful!) --joe decker^talk 19:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! 208.95.51.38 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about a deleted article Jassim Haji

Hi there, thank you for your efforts in Wikipedia. I have created an article about Jassim Haji and I am confident that he meets the nobility requirements with many references yet it has been deleted twice. There are other articles about individuals that are not to the level of Jassim Haji without useful content nor references yet they are not marked for deletion, for example Jassim Mohammed Haji and Samer Majali. I would like to kindly request you to reconsider reinstating the article of Jassim Haji and I will be more than happy to apply any comments to make the articles worth having. Awaiting your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki man 195 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion previously, you'll have to demonstrate notability to me (by showing me sources that shows he meets our biographical notability guideline, WP:BASIC first. As far as other articles go, you may find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS enlightening. --joe decker^talk 14:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

19:03:45, 3 June 2017 review of submission by Musicwest

• Musicwest (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Melody Diachun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe,

I've added several references. Would you mind re-reviewing my page when you're able?

Thank you!

I'm travelling right now, hope to be able to take a look by Sunday on my return, if another reviewer hasn't gotten to it already. Sorry about the large backlog of unreviewed drafts. --joe decker^talk 14:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to see deleted page.

Hi! I saw you on a list of users who will consider requests to see deleted content. I created a page this week Chess Today. I didn't know it had previously existed until I saw on its talk page it says it existed ten years ago but was deleted. I think it does now meet notability requirements and I've put a few reasons on the talk page. Anyway, I was wondering if I could be allowed to see the page from ten years ago in case there's anything I can add to the new version. If you think this is a reasonable request, please could you just paste whatever existed onto my talk page? If not, sorry to bother you. Thank you for your consideration. Imnikrist (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No trouble at all, the old revisions now appear as the oldest three items in the article history. --joe decker^talk 14:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. That is extremely helpful and kind. It has yielded (indirectly) at least two more possibly useful references. Thanks again and also for your speediness. :) Imnikrist (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Steve Smoger undelete request

Hello,

On 10 June 2014 you have deleted the article page Steve Smoger based on "Notability of boxing refereee has not been established."

The character is an IBHOF referee class of 2015. It appears that there is a substantial coverage of the character in G news , Google Books as well as other sources online. Please undelete the page, so it can improved if it was 'poorly' written at the start. Thank you. (Parviziskender (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC))

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 19. —Cryptic 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Parviziskender:, I"m restoring it, there appears to be substantial new evidence of notability. I would appreciate a few good sources being added to the biography soon, thanks. I'll leave a note at the DRV. --joe decker^talk 18:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this. The article will be improved in the coming weeks. Parviziskender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think it's now in at least a bit better shape than it was before the deletion. --joe decker^talk 04:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

About a cancellation

Recently you've canceled one of my review(Notre Dame Science Club). I think it was totally legit since I couldn't show much third party information. But I've hard copy I mean paper article and journals about that. How can I refer them? Tamim Ehsan (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Great question! For magazines and journals, I'd normally include the name of the magazine/journal, the name of the article, perhaps a page number and/or author if possible. For a book, book name, author and page number are great. A web-link is not required by our policies, although it certainly makes reviewers' lives easier when they are. The relevant policy statement is at Wikipedia:Offline sources. One way to think of it is this: if I were going to a library to find the source on paper, what information would I need to actually find the resource and the relevant info in it? Thanks! --joe decker^talk 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:35:19, 22 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dapifo

• Dapifo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fractal Rainbow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New subject was rejected
What I can do to improve the article.... This subject is very important and will be an important change on the future of cosmology... please, read again and help me to improve it to be accepted.

Dapifo (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

21:43:16, 22 June 2017 review of submission by Dapifo

• Dapifo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fractal Rainbow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please, check it with physics... you can see opinions in FQXI, an important physics WEB... please, read the article and also the opinions and rate... Let me know what I should to to be accepted.

The reason the draft was declined is written in the pink box, and says: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The way you correct the lack of "significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is to find signficant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the inventor of the idea. E.g., scientific journal publications, newspapers, magazines, and so forth. Things with an editorial process. Once you find them, you write the article *based* on them, and include them as references.

If there aren't such sources, anywhere, that would prevent us from accepting the article entirely. If you used the "article wizard" to create the article, then it should have explained this requirement. We are not a publisher of original research (see WP:OR). --joe decker^talk 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 02:38:25, 23 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ktkim980

• Ktkim980 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Coinplug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inquiry on WP:CORPDEPTH requirement

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing my article so quickly!

I am contacting you because I would like more details on why the article on Coinplug was not accepted. I must admit that I was quite surprised since I have looked into the Wikipedia pages of other Bitcoin related companies such as Coinbase and Zebpay carefully before submitting my article. While I understand the point you have made, I simply cannot wrap my head around how the other two articles, especially Zebpay, have been accepted since they also do not possess sources outsides just news coverage. So I guess my question would be: what was allowed these articles to be published while mine was not?

Thanks again, Ktkim980

Ktkim980 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The confusion may have a simple explanation, while I have not reviewed the other articles, it is very possible that they do not meet our criteria.. This is a common enough occurence that we have an essay about the problem, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

If you understand our notability criteria and feel that some of the other articles don't meet our criteria, you can nominate them for deletion via Articles for Deletion. But if you're unsure of what the criteria mean,.. well, let me cut and paste what I just told the editor just above here.  :)

An article can be approved with two or three citations, but each one of them needs to meet all of the following tests:

• Each of the sources must be reliable in the meaning of our policies. Newspapers, magazines, books, etc., with an editorial process and a reputation for fact-checking.
• Each of the sources must give signficant coverage about the topic, and in the case of organizations/corporations/businesses/etc., that means each must really be about more than a simple news evert.
• Each of the sources must have been written independently from the subject, completely at arm's length. If a piece looks like a lightly-rewritten press release, for example, it's usually pretty obvious.

This is spelled out in WP:BASIC and WP:CORP, but I realize it's difficult to make sense of. I do get that.

I've tried to translate at least our basic criteria into .. well, perhaps not plain English but plainer English, at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable.

I hope some of that is helpful. If not, I would very much recommend the WP:Teahouse, they're a fantastic group of editors specializing in helping new editors get up to speed. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 02:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello.

Why did you delete the page I created named "Konstantinos Tsouvelekakis"? Is it by mistake? If so, please reinstate it or tell me to how to do it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takisot (talk • contribs) 08:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It was not a mistake, the article was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Konstantinos_Tsouvelekakis. To summarize, editors felt that there were not sources available (inside or outside of the article) which met our biographical notability guideline. Concerns were also raised about the promotionally of the article, but the key argument related to notability. --joe decker^talk 14:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

08:00:38, 26 June 2017 review of submission by Symbl467

• Symbl467 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Turing's Wager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing this article so quickly. You have marked the page as declined for copyright violation. This violation is confined to one section (‘Relationship between Turing's Wager and the Turing Test’): if this section is deleted, the article can be resubmitted. I would do this deletion myself and resubmit, but you have marked the article as a candidate for speedy deletion, and the users that create pages that are candidates for speedy deletion are discouraged from un-candidating these pages themselves. Could you un-candidate-it on my behalf, so I can delete the offending section and resubmit? Symbl467 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I screwed up there you had properly marked the quoted section as a quote, with a bit of attribution it's fine. I've reverted the CSD nomination. This also had the effect of leaving the article submitted for review, I won't be able to do a review myself now, but at least it's in the queue. My apologies for the error. --joe decker^talk 14:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Symbl467 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A esoteric way is not esotericism

Please delete this talk page thanks

This whole talk page? Umm, no. Why? --joe decker^talk 15:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Esoteric Ways

Practices and Ways are exercises for an Intuitive experience by a Monk (emotional), Fakir (physical), Yogi (mental) and others toward self-knowledge. (by its nature, a esoteric life is a secretive-life-long learning process) ...Today searching for a Way in one sense depends on luck; even a lot of reading cannot guarantee or lead to a Way...Arnlodg (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk is to try once more to submit this subject to become a new Wikipedia content section in Western Esotericism...As a help to make Wikipedia more understandable about knowledge-esoteric-a human condition.. ...I have thought about citing and referencing as you suggested, but it seems to ring true the way it is now. As reality from and in one's own experience, exclusive of others experience...Arnlodg (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In terms of improvements to the Western esotericism article, you may want to discuss any improvements you'd like to make on that article's talk page, which is at Talk:Western esotericism. --joe decker^talk 15:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

23:40:34, 22 June 2017 review of submission by Warholtodiefor

• Warholtodiefor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Revolver Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

My article for Revolver Gallery has a lot of citations and is thoroughly researched. I have never written a Wikipedia article before, so I would appreciate it if you could tell me specific things I could do to get my post approved?

Thanks

it's not so much a matter of citations as the type of citation that's at issue. An article can be approved with two or three citations, but each one of them needs to meet all of the following tests:

• Each of the sources must be reliable in the meaning of our policies. Newspapers, magazines, books, etc., with an editorial process and a reputation for fact-checking.
• Each of the sources must give signficant coverage about the topic, and in the case of organizations/corporations/businesses/etc., that means each must really be about more than a simple news evert.
• Each of the sources must have been written independently from the subject, completely at arm's length. If a piece looks like a lightly-rewritten press release, for example, it's usually pretty obvious.

This is spelled out in WP:BASIC and WP:CORP, but I realize it's difficult to make sense of. I do get that.

I've tried to translate at least our basic criteria into .. well, perhaps not plain English but plainer English, at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable.

I hope some of that is helpful. If not, I would very much recommend the WP:Teahouse, they're a fantastic group of editors specializing in helping new editors get up to speed. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 02:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you gives examples of which of our references is okay, and which should be removed? I understand the need for using legit references but I'm not sure which ones you would consider good enough. The references in my article are pretty much all the links ever written about Revolver Gallery, so there's not much else I can add. But if there are some references you think I should remove, I'd be able to do that. Thank you for your time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warholtodiefor (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Template Edit

Hello Joe. Heard your bot from other user. Not good at English , so i ask this question.

Are your bots can have new template edition appear in article (article that use template) immediately , without having wait sometime or having null edit or having WP:PURGE ? -- Comrade John (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Not immediately, but my bots can purge articles automatically on schedule in some (but not all) situations. Is there a specific template you're concerned about? --joe decker^talk 14:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrol me?

Hi Joe Decker, I saw here that you're able to set privileges like AutoPatrol, and I have a similar number of article creations (many are translations) and wonder if I should have this status, too. No worries if not. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Done after some time being impressed by several of your article creations. The only thing that might have raised an eyebrow was a recent (and perhaps still in-progress) article translation that simply suggested looking to the source article for cites, in general, we need more direct verifiability than that. A small matter, your general adherence to WP:V (as well as other issues we look at with autopatrolled, particularly BLP and copyright) are entirely on-target. Enjoy! --joe decker^talk 13:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you remember which one that was? Might've been in the middle and gotten distracted with something else. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Pere John Sala, and you've already fixed it. :) Cheers, --joe decker^talk 20:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hey, thanks so much for your comments in response to my draft of "The Wire (Indian web publication)"! I made changes based on your helpful advice, such as citing more sources and elaborating, and then resubmitted the article. It got approved quickly, which makes this the first Wikipedia article I've written! :) Yay, cheers!! Lako128 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lako128: Congratulations, and thank you! I hope you enjoy editing at Wikipedia going forward, don't hesitate to ask if I can ever point you in the right direction here! --joe decker^talk 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Entuity page for review

Hey Joe,

Thanks for reviewing the Entuity page - I've resubmitted with a couple of extra references. It's also worth noting that Gartner are the network management industries foremost authority - usually people listen to what they say. To be included on the Gartner list (as per reference 3: https://www.gartner.com/doc/3645363/market-guide-network-automation) along with the likes of HP, Dell, Cisco and Solarwinds, shows the notability Entuity holds in the space.

I hope this is taken into consideration.

Many thanks,

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiubov (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Gartner is reliable and independent, but the cite there is not in-depth coverage in the meaning of that in our policies. Which, I realize, are confusing. Articles on corporations also face the higher bar placed on them by WP:CORPDEPTH, which rules out a few of the other citations. You may wish to 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. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 16:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

07:40:16, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Hillin

• Hillin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gibson L Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

Thanks for your review opinions. I've updated the article, converted all the inappropriate cites into external links, and added some more cites from a book (an e-book, though) as far as I can find. I'd like to know how you think about this article now.

@Hillin:: Good improvements, I've added a couple more sources (that verify not as much of the article, but taken as a whole demonstrate the subject of the L-line as a series of guitars has received enough coverage to warrant an article. I'd recommend you resubmit it, if you would move the few references that are currently in headers to be located at the ends of the paragraphs or sections they verify, that would be more in keeping with our usual style--that's not a requirement, but it can't hurt. --joe decker^talk 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 10:24:25, 9 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rushwarp

• Rushwarp (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Micronation Tasbackaland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

excuse the second request for help - I was looking at the wrong page and did not see the repsonse from the helpdesk! Rushwarp (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Rushwarp (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No trouble, the main issue with the micronation is that we need articles to be based on reliable sources independent of the subject. These would most often be things such as books, newspaper or magazine articles that talk about the subject. --joe decker^talk 14:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Joe Decker,

Thank you first of all in reviewing my Sandbox page. I have resubmitted my page with additional information based on my understanding of your comments and guidelines. Please feel free to let me know if the new edit complies with the necessary requirements. Thank you again for your help.

Best, Mrngcuegee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrngcuegee (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! --joe decker^talk 00:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

18:08:30, 25 July 2017 review of submission by Ahni81

• Ahni81 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kole Imports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, just wanted to ask why my article was declined and what can I do to make it better. Thanks!

Hi, @Ahni81::

The issue is that the sources provided for the Kole article do not meet our WP:CORP guideline. The executive summary of what needs to be done to improve it is to find additional sources that do meet this guideline. The tough part is understanding precisely the types of sources that are required. "Multiple, reliable, independent, sources providing substantial non-routine coverage." sounds simple but it's a bit deceptive.

"Multiple", at least, is straightforward. Two or more, each of which must meet all of the remaining requirements.

"reliable" in this context means, generally, from a source with a formal editorial process (that the coverage actually went through). Newspapers, magazines, and books often meet this test. Most blogs don't. (A lot of stuff in business journals tends not to, for reasons that are better covered in the next point).

"independent" means that the author and publisher of the piece were written independently from the company being covered, and that there is no business or other signficant relationship between the two. In other words, "arm's length" coverage. The concern that I mentioned above about business journals (and many on-line sources are guilty of this too) often have "articles" which are direct copies of, or lightly warmed over versions of press releases. Those won't fly here. Even articles that are substantially interviews with a company officer are sometimes questioned on this point,

"substantial coverage" Each of the pieces should be about, or largely about the company, rather than a piece that gives a passing mention to the comp any. WP:CORPDEPTH also requires that the coverage rise above routine coverage of corporate milestones, things like announcements of rounds of funding are unlikely to meet this, for example.

More detail on this is available at WP:CORP

If you haven't found sources that reach this bar, and are having trouble finding some, consider asking for assistance at the WP:Teahouse. They may have suggestions for places to look for appropriate sources, they're a great group of folks.

Meeting this requirement is the primary hurdle for any topic to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 00:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable drafts

I'm afraid that I don't at all agree that this draft was in a fit state to be moved from draft space to main space.

• It's English is poor: "it's" instead of "is"; "from Clubiona genus" instead of "in the Clubiona genus" or "in the genus Clubiona"; "described of" instead of "described by"; "don't have" instead of "does not have"; etc.
• It has a manually created infobox instead of a taxobox using either {{Taxobox}} or {{Speciesbox}}.
• Its referencing is not very good; the main taxonomic source for spiders is the World Spider Catalog, which is there but not properly used and without a URL.

Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: You're apparently unaware of the basic nature of WP:AFC. It is a triage process, and one whose basic question is this. "If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?" If you believe that my estimate here (which was "Yes") was in error, I recommend you nominate the article for deletion.

I am deeply sympathetic to the desire for higher standards. I am also deeply aware of the size and nature of the backlog there. You might well consider spending a few days trying your hand at reviewing, seriously, it's ... enlightening. Cheers, --joe decker^talk 19:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not whether this is an appropriate topic for an article; it has been agreed that all species are. So there was no question of deletion. The issue is whether it was ready to be moved from draft to user space. A useful move for drafts with a clear "owning" WikiProject, in this case WikiProject Spiders, is to leave a note there asking someone to review it. At the very least the article should have been tagged with {{multiple issues}}, which might have attracted someone to work on it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

" The issue is whether it was ready to be moved from draft to user space."

And I have quoted the relevant test for that question, taken word for word from the AfC reviewing instructions, for which there is consensus. But yes, it could have been tagged better. --joe decker^talk 12:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions does not mandate only two outcomes, "accept and move to main space" or "delete", as you seem to be implying (although I agree that parts of the page are poorly written and seem to imply this). A reviewer can also decline to accept a draft article in its current state, giving reasons, after which revisions may make the article acceptable. Note also the instruction "fix it yourself, or accept the article and tag it with maintenance templates to alert other editors to the one or two issues [my emphasis] that you believe need to be resolved first" which carries the clear implication that articles moved out of draft space will have only "one or two issues". This article had far more than that and I believe it should have been left in draft space until it was sufficiently improved to be fit for main space. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think fundamentally we have points of strong agreement and disagreement. You seem to feel the article should have had it's flaws appropriately tagged and that I failed to do so, and on this we agree. You also seem to feel that apostrophe errors and similar trivia are the sort of thing that we should keep drafts from mainspace for. If that is your view, I think ... wow, we disagree to a degree which literally astonishes me. If I've misunderstood you on the last point, then accept my apologies in advance.

In any case, my views are unlikely to change on any of these three points, and I consider this thread closed. Good editing to you. --joe decker^talk 14:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

To Joe Decker

Hello Joe Decker, thank you for the links, and the offer to the Tea house... thank you for the welcome. 😅😄 so thats all i have to say. 🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Michel (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe, I added multiple independent sources for Dr. Ali Rezai wiki to meet notability standards. Thanks for teviewing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraWallace799 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Susan Michel:, if you add {{submit}} to the article another reviewer will take a look at your additional sources. Thank you! --joe decker^talk 02:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joe: I wanted to check in to see if you had yet reviewed the additional sources I added for the Dr. Ali Rezai profile please. I'm working to establish notability standards. Thank you.LauraWallace799 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @LauraWallace799:, I have not, but another reviewer will be along, hopefully soon. Unfortunately we have well over a thousand editors waiting on reviews, and this creates quite a delay at times. Please accept my apologies. --joe decker^talk 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mensura Jahić draft

hello, you already have read my article so i wanted to kindly ask you to go through my article as i made some improvements on it and if you could tell me what to improve, or if i'm missing something or if i can send it on second review. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmraAB (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm unable to do so at the moment, but you need to resubmit the article for review. Add {{submit}} to it in the "edit source" editor, you'll know that's been done correctly when you see a yellow informational box in the article, in addition to the existing pink ones. We have a backlog right now of over one thousand unreviewed articles, and unfortunately this creates quite a bit of delay.

In the meantime, the vast majority of articles that have trouble getting accepted here have trouble doing so for failure to meet our admittedly complex notability guidelines. They can be difficult to understand. My two best recommendations for understanding them are reading and understanding User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable, my attempt to make sense of our notability guidelines, and asking for assistance at the WP:Teahouse. Please accept my apologies for the delay. Best regards, --joe decker^talk 14:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Delection of two of my articles: Aderemi Adegbite and Folu Agoi

Dear Joe Decker,

Greetings from Lagos, Nigeria.

Two of my articles have been deleted and I need your help to recover them for me, so as to improve the articles. Actually, the pages were flagged last month by Oluwa2Chainz and I started a talk with him but he never responded until now.

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aderemi_Adegbite was created about four years ago and to it was approved. I was surprised to see it flagged last month by Oluwa2Chainz for no reason or explanation. And the second article was written last month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folu_Agoi

Please help retrieve both articles so as to improve them.

Best regards, Ayandaabeke (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayandaabeke (talk • contribs)

Greetings!

Let's take them one at a time, starting with Adreemi Adegbite. The article was deleted based on a community discussion, which means that I can't simply undelete it without showing that he meets our basic inclusion guideline for biographies. Are you familiar with that guideline? What we need there can be difficult to make sense of, because it tends to use common English words to mean something more precise than their general meaning, I've tried to make a more accessible version of it at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. Once you've looked through those, if you can show me sources that show Adegbite meets the inclusion guideline, we can discuss the next steps for it then. --joe decker^talk 15:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Brady (basketball)

hello, I read that Jordan Brady's Wikipedia page was deleted in 2016. Brady played in the D-League and internationally. Brady served as an assistant coach in the D League. On August 7 he was named as head coach of the expansion Wisconsin Herd. This information can be found in reliable primary and secondary sources. See and as examples also listed in USA Today.Syracusestorm (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Syracusestorm:,

You are correct that the article was previously deleted, it was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jordan_Brady_(basketball).

However, you have not, with the NBA and Oshkosh Independent links, demonstrated that the coach meets either WP:NBASKETBALL, or WP:BASIC, and that would be required for me to restore the article.

Your comment about primary and secondary sources suggests that you misunderstand what our basic notability guideline requires.

1. We need multiple sources (and those need to actually be different from one another.
2. We need each of those sources to be from a reliable, secondary source source, that is one with a formal editorial process.
3. We need each of those sources to be independent from the subject of the article, not themselves, not their employer, etc., including not being written secondhand by such a person.
4. We need each of those sources to contain signficant coverage of the person.

As I see the NBA source, it's not independent. It's more than sufficient to verify the information, but it's doesn't (because of all the clauses above) go toward demonstrating that the subject has received the kind of press that we require to demonstrate notability.

I note that the OI article, which ... appears to be independent, has identical text (at least in part) to the NBA article. In other words, it's a reprinted press release, and is not going to be considered independent.

You mention USA Today, but I don't see a link, I'd be happy to look at it, but you really need two sources which meet every one of these criteria, and so far we have none. --joe decker^talk 22:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

A article when became coach of the Stampede Here is an article which describe his college experiences. Professional playing Career

Maybe this can support article.

@Syracusestorm: Two of those new sources, the Herald Extra and possibly the CSTV stories, appear to meet the specific requirements involved, I've restored the article. I would very much appreciate if you'd add those two sources to the article and provide updating there, in order to make those sources clear to other editors who might propose the article for deletion going forward. Thank you for your patience. --joe decker^talk 15:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:02:15, 5 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Brittany01davis

• Brittany01davis (talk · contribs)
  • User:Brittany01davis/sandbox/1-800-JUNKPRO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe. I am in no way trying to use this page as an advertisement. When I submitted it for review the first time, it got declined due to the references section. I updated the reference section and didn't change anything else so I'm confused as to why it was only declined for references the first time but declined the second time for advertising. 1-800-GOTJUNK and JUNK KINGS are businesses that are similar to 1-800-JUNKPRO and have pages very similar to the one I wrote, on Wikipedia. Please provide any suggestions you have to fix the issue. Thank you.

Brittany01davis (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The text of the draft article is anything but encyclopedic. Reread the first paragraph of the article, and ask yourself which part of it "summarizes what is said about the company in reliable sources, independent of the company, and written in neutral, objective, even dry language." In my view, none of it is.

You are right to complain, in part, that there is other problematic content on the encyclopedia. Our existing essay on the concern you raise there can be read at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But a summary of that article might be "yes, there are other bad articles, but we don't fix them by allowing even more bad articles."

You may also find the way I'm explaining this unhelpful, and if that's the case I'm sorry. You might try asking for assistance at the Wikipedia Teahouse. They're a great group of editors working to help explain our maze-like policies and procedures to new editors, and their assistance is often extremely constructive. There should be a link there on your talk page. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 21:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Google bus protests

I noticed through the talk page that you had been interested in the Google bus protests article approximately three years ago. I've been working on the article for the past month and was curious if you had some time if you could take a look at it and perhaps provide any Suggestions you may have. Also, the Lavandowski incident, I kept that information only because when I came to the article that part about him was already included. As I now read the talk page discussion about it, I see that there was some dispute over whether it was appropriate to keep it. (I've removed it since then.) Any feedback you have on this would be much appreciated. Thank you — Spintendo^Talk 19:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks! --joe decker^talk 17:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

help with new article, previous candidate for deletion

Hello, It appears that you previously deleted an article called Bloodstrike (band) but according to the automatic message that pops up, that was a while back. I'm hoping to create that page, but not wanting to do the work only to have it re-deleted. I have read the notability guidelines for music and I figure that at this point Bloodstrike would qualify with several independently famous members, 2 albums on a record label, and many verifiable third-party sources easily searchable on google and at least one mention in an internationally recognized print publication. Does this sound like an article that would remain undeleted to you? Or would there need to be some other factor in play to keep the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryukin (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The community tends to interpret the "independently famous members" with a high bar for famousness, I doubt that would be automatic. The best way to really get an article on Bloodstrike to stick is to find a couple sources that show it meets WP:GNG. Unfortunately that guideline can be pretty opaque, I've made an attempt to explain it further at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. Two really good, completely independent sources with in-depth coverage of the band would do the trick. Let me know if I can provide a copy of the text of the deleted article for you. --joe decker^talk 17:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Review of Dr. Ali Rezai draft profile foto meet notability standards.

Hi Joe: I'm checking back on your review of the draft Dr. Ali Rezai profile I have edited to meet notability standards (added mutliple news sources per request). It's been sitting since late Jun and I'd welcome your re-review please. Thank you.

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I've responded, sorry that took the form of multiple short emails. --joe decker^talk 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hamel

Please Joe accept my thanks concerning the edition of Christian Hamel. P.-F. Puech

You are most welcome! --joe decker^talk 17:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

03:14:36, 17 October 2017 review of submission by Halfpackpad

• Halfpackpad (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Z com Securities (Thailand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing the page. I have updated it with a little more background info (I don't want to do much as per the COI guidelines) and added more references.

Hi, @Halfpackpad:, sorry it's taken me a day or two to get back. I know that our guidelines can be pretty complicated and poorly explained, I'll do my best to give you a better explanation of what they need. For companies in particular, what we require from sources in order to demonstrate "notability" can be tougher.

More or less we need two or more sources, but each of those two must meet a whole bunch of other specific tests.

1. The first is that really we need the company to have been discussed in-depth in multiple sources that have a formal editorial process. Generally this is going to be newspapers and magazines. Government listings of companies can be used to verify information, but aren't selective enough to demonstrate notability themselves.
2. For companies, we go a bit further, because many periodicals (business journals in particular are notorious for this) will publish articles which are based only on press releases, we exclude sources that talk about the company in the context of routine corporate events. WP:CORPDEPTH is the formal policy section on this, but generally announcements of funding, management changes, and even some product announcements are excluded. Instead, pieces where a journalist actually went and tried to learn something about the company and then write about it.
3. The sources have to talk about the company in-depth, at least a couple paragraphs of solid information are probably a good handwave for what the "minimum" is here.

I'm not going to decline the article, I'll let another reviewer chime in (often different reviewers find different ways to explain a subject or spot different ways to proceed, this is a case where more hands is better, not worse). But I do think that it will likely be declined in its current state, and that additional sources of the type described above would be necessary to change that.

You may also want to talk to the folks at the Teahouse, they're very good at helping new editors here find their way around our maze-like policies. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 01:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Writaliano (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joe, you recently deleted my article submission (AmoLatina). Consequently, I just send you an email seeking clarification. Hope you respond at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Writaliano (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. That article was deleted a bit over three years ago. You can see the discussion as to why it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmoLatina, however that discussion is hard to interpret without familiarity with not only our policies but the abbreviated way we often discuss them.

The editors who took part in that discussion felt that the web site had failed to demonstrate that the subject met our General notability guideline, which you can read at WP:GNG. This more or less requires the article to be written from reliable, editorially-sound sources completely independent of the topic, which discuss the topic in detail.

My own role in the process, again in September 2004, was simply to determine that a consensus of other editors had come to that conclusion, and to carry out the decision.

If you'd like to have an article on the subject, the best way to proceed is to find two sources that meet the requirements of the GNG. You may wish to ask for assistance at the Wikipedia Teahouse WP:Teahouse, they are an excellent resource for newer editors trying to find their way around our confusing maze of policies and guidelines. Best of luck. --joe decker^talk 01:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Z com Securities

Hi Joe, many thanks for all the great guidance that you provided. Yes I'm really new to this and the guidelines are a little confusing and difficult to find the right ones! So your help has been greatly appreciated. I'll take your advice and checkout the treehouse too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfpackpad (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Halfpackpad: Great, and you are most welcome. WP:Teahouse. --joe decker^talk 05:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Joe's null bot 8 Stalling or slow?

Hi, I noticed that the files appearing in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old are appearing a lot more than 7 days later - My bot does the revision deletes of the category (Special:Contributions/RonBot) - I looked at the files just processed earlier today (e.g. the last 3 done at 14:40, 17 October 2017 were File:Zuleika-1957.jpg, File:ZZTopExpectNoQuarterTour.jpg, File:Дикое поле (Wild Field)) film poster.jpg) and I see 14 to 16 days elapsed, we are currently tagging about 1000 files a day - is that too many for the bot? As the bot makes "no" edits, it not possible for anyone to know if it's healthy or not - I know DatBot6 was down a couple of days and then caught up in one fell swoop - that might have had an effect. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and check tomorrow, I've been getting random drabs of login errors from the 'bot when it's run on Labs, and it's not clear what's going on there. This started when the "send emails on bad login attempts" began. I'm away from home until tomorrow, otherwise I'd look tonight.  :) --joe decker^talk 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a quick peek, apparently (from the logged error messages at least) the server database we run on was locked after a database failure, more or less shutting off bots while the database was replicated. 1000/day is generally more than doable. --joe decker^talk 01:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, nice to know there is a reason for the issue, and not some random gremlin. :-) NB: 1000 a day will mean there will be up to about 8000 in the category, as they stay there 7 days - currently at 7500 in main category now, as 2600 have suddenly moved (today) to the Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old - I assume that's your bot now working.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and yeah, I did a bit of manual intervention to clean up the backlog. There are still gremlins still lurking as well, perhaps I'll manage to squash one or two today.  :) Seriously, thanks for the note! --joe decker^talk 17:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Calvert Research and Management

I submitted the Calvert Research and Management draft on behalf of Eaton Vance Corporation, the company that acquired the former Calvert Investments. We need to this new page and redirect to it, or remove the Calvert Investments page entirely. It is appearing in natural search and does not reflect the legal acquisition of the company in 2017.

Cmspellman (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cmspellman:: To repeat what I said at the article:

While you may be, or may be associated with, the copyright holder of the work which appears to match the text you have submitted, it is usually the case that such material (particularly any autobiographical material) is often unsuitable for Wikipedia. The goals of such writing are different, self-written biographies or descriptions aim to put the subject in a positive and sometimes glowing light, whereas our encyclopedia aspires to neutral, balanced, dry and objective summaries.

While I have blanked the material within, you can still look at and even edit the old version, at least for now. At the article, click on "View History", you'll be taken to a list of revisions of the article. Select one by clicking on one of the date/time stamps, to see it, and you can click "edit" from there if you'd like to revise the article starting from an older version.

If you still believe you would like to donate a license to the copyrighted text, your next step is to read WP:Donating copyrighted materials, that page explains how to proceed, and a few important things you will have to understand before you do. --joe decker^talk 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

As an alternative, you may wish to make a request on the talk page of the existing article suggesting specific changes that need to be made to update the article, and then tagging that with {{Requested edit}}, for another Wikipedia editor to come along and assist. In either case, we have to be extremely careful to prevent the reuse of any copyrighted material without formal legal permission. Best of luck. --joe decker^talk 16:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Joe , Thanks for your advice and accordingly the article has been carefully translated into english and has been resubmitted. . Best Regards. Marc Marc.siebert (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for joining us in our encyclopedia building! --joe decker^talk 05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:16:26, 28 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Seansunson

• Seansunson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:247 energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey Joe 247 Energy Brand only was published by the Apply Daily newspaper and that the only new sources I have in Hong Kong. There are other blogs about the energy drink products. Can that be used for approval? I also have seen that many other small energy brands only have one reference and got approved. What can I do?

Thanks

Seansunson (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources about the energy drinks can be used if and only if they are "reliable" (that is, if they come from a newspaper, magazine, etc. with an editorial process and a reputation for fact-checking), and "independent" (written completely at arm's length from the company. Because some blogs, business journals and such often reprint press releases with little or no fact-checking or verification, it can at first difficult to tell whether a source meets this second criterion.

While there are a few cases in which articles can in theory be accepted with one source (there are special guidelines for politicians at the highest national levels, some sportspeople, and so on), none of those apply to companies, brands or products. However, it is certainly the case that not everything on the Wikipedia meets all of our guidelines. We work toward fixing that, but the encyclopedia is large, and it takes time. --joe decker^talk 16:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Joe's Null Bot

Hi! Would it be possible for you to run the task for purging the main page on the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia's main page as well? I've lately gotten a few complaints that the main page is off by a day or two, which looks pretty unprofessional. No bot approval would be needed for this task on nowiki. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby:: Hi! Yes, it would be very easy. I will try and take a look at that tomorrow, and will ping you again when I do. --joe decker^talk 17:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I don't know how often it runs here (the task said every 15 minutes, but that might be old info?), but it's not really necessary to do it that often for us. I think once a day would be enough, if you do it more often that's fine too. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: I've taken your word that I won't need approval (I'm sure you're right, given your 'crat permissions at NOWIKI), and have set it up to run it hourly, at two minutes past the hour. In particular, it's attempting a purge on Portal:Forside at that time. If you could keep an eye out to see if it's working, I'd appreciate it, it's just a bit too easy for this code to quietly fail if I've typo'd something.  :) --joe decker^talk 20:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll keep an eye out in the next several days, since the problem this solves isn't exactly reproducible at a whim… And thanks again! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure! Cheers, --joe decker^talk 22:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo removed

Hi!

I’m sorry I can’t seem to understand the reason my photo has been removed from my wiki page. I am new to this how can I guarantee my photo remains? You mentioned something about it not being free? Could you further explain please!

Thanks -- Widad shafakoj (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but copyright is a common issue. The folks at Wikipedia Commons, where the image was, removed it with the less than helpful message suggesting the issue might be copyright. The editor who performed the deletion can be reached at this link: [1], I would leave a note there. --joe decker^talk 02:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Haider Kazmi

There are some more Sources For Kazmi From TOI I Added Some Sources in article Also if You need More Then They are In Hindi If you Want I can Provide Thanks

Hi! Those are likely good sources, please make sure to submit the article if you haven't already, and another reviewer will be along as soon as possible. --joe decker^talk 19:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Lucy Emke

I've added several independent sources, most other the sources are on social media and have been omitted due to guidelines.

Thanks, resubmit the article if you haven't already, and another reviewer should be along shortly! --joe decker^talk 19:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Joe Decker! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) --joe decker^talk 05:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Our similar feelings towards Adam Sandler

Hello, I feel that your undoing of my work on the Jack and Jill page was completely unjustified, I had ressons for adding my art to the aforementioned page.

Firstly, I do not like Adam Sandler, he is a disgrace to the movie industry. Many people seem to like him and adore his films, I felt the need to spread my views about him, allowing people that do like him to see another perspective.

Mr Sandler himself will not likely see my changes, unless he reads his own Wikipedia pages regularly, but that is unlikely, therefore, he hasn't seen my additions. This is just a way for me to share views that aren't malicious towards Sandler himself. I haven't gone out of my way to make anyone, Sandler or otherwise, feel hurt by what I have done.

The internet is a place for many people to come together and express their views, share opinions and enjoy the work of others. You may say that a website like this is no place for personal opinions, yet what constitutes a 'good' or 'bad' film or actor, is entirely subjective, therefore, there is no way that anything can be definitely defined as either.

I hope to hear a response from your concerning the above.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.68.116 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't actually like Adam Sandler's work either, but what I think, and what you think, are not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the statements in it should be based on statements made in reliable secondary sources. Our quite-similar views that Sandler is terrible have no place in the articles here, sitting around adding such nonsense to articles is inappropriate.

I hope this clarifies your confusion about (1) my view of Sandler, which is again *more or less the same as yours*, and (2) Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for shitposting. Have a great day! --joe decker^talk 21:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I am actually really glad that you dislike Adam Sandler too, I agree that an encyclopaedia is no place for personal opinion, yet if that argument will be used it could be said that Mr Sanlder himself shouldn't qualify for a page in said encyclopaedia. My 'shitposting' as you put it, did make people smile. It is humourous to click on random linked words and end up on a random actor's page, or click on his name and end up with the President. The aim of my changes was to make people laugh, wich I hope it did.

Art is made to move and intrigue, I hope to put the art in article.

if it helps, I laughed.  :) I end up cleaning up a lot of stuff like that (and sometimes much worse), but very very occasionally something still warrants a giggle here. Cheers, --joe decker^talk 21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I hope more people viewed it before you and enjoyed it, but if it made one person laugh, I feel I've done my job.

One day though, Adam Sandler will be brought down, one Wikipedia page at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.68.116 (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, just know that if you keep it up, you will be blocked from editing. But feel free to carry on your Sandler campaign elsewhere. Peace out. --joe decker^talk 22:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Mynyr koni

He is a rector of the biggest albanian university. How come he is not worthy of a wikipedia article?Gezimmemishaj (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rectors are not automatically considered to reach our inclusion category, but many likely do, and Knoi very well may. However, to have an article, we need to see that there is signficant coverage of him in reliable, secondary sources independent from him--generally things like articles in newspapers, magazines, academic journals, that sort of thing. If you would like more help in understanding how to show he meets this criterion, you might ask for assistance at the WP:Teahouse, they are a great group of editors that specialize in making sense of our complex policies to new editors here. Best of luck --joe decker^talk 16:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting you to review my draft article

Hello Sir, I am new contributor to Wikipedia. I have made a few edits before moving on to create my first draft article. I am requesting you to please review my draft article and provide your input. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adhyapak_Shakti_Manch I will be thankful for your assistance.

Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at Vaibhavconnects's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavconnects (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! With 1,950 articles awaiting review, it may take us a bit of time to get to yours, but I promise we will. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 15:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY GOD DAMN STUFF

I type what i need to type then you delete it, just sod off... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerialKnightStudios (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not your stuff, it's a Wikipedia article. But if you'd like to mention the name change, you would find it easier for that mention to stick if you would include a reference to a reliable, third-party source. The easiest way to start learning how to make references on Wikipedia is to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which includes a nice video showing how to use the RefToolbar, which makes working with references a whole lot easier. Best of luck. --joe decker^talk 23:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You may also wish to ask for assistance at the WP:Teahouse, and you will need to review this introduction to our conflict-of-interest policy. --joe decker^talk 23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The stuff he was trying to add looks like a hoax. There is nothing in the Google News to support such an acquisition. I have warned accordingly. He has had one go at adding the same thing from an IP address and now seems to have given up. Lets hope that is the end of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like he got blocked, color me unsurprised.  :) --joe decker^talk 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Section moved from above

Hi Why decline bro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenskuwait (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Which draft are you talking about? --joe decker^talk 00:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Creating new article

I'd like to request someone make an article on NuVasive, the company, but the instructions are mind-boggling and always seem to redirect me to pages that lead to no answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asalkowskineo (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Asalkowskineo:: No trouble, I've added the request at the bottom of the section here: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/M-S#N, along with some hints for folks who follow that page about where to find the specific types of coverage that might allow us to have an article on the subject. --joe decker^talk 19:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Big Lez Show

Your opinion might be helpful in reviewing the above mentioned draft, since you were one of the people who deleted it originally. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Responded there, thanks! --joe decker^talk 06:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable source for declined draft

Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Football_Referee_(video_game). I found a reliable source for it which is from BBC Click, I remember watching it on BBC Click English channel but now I cannot find it online, the only source I found on the web is from the game developer's youtube channel which isn't in English, but still captured from BBC, is it considered ok? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQq8VOX-aGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinglisch (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I would think that's fine (although I don't speak Persian), so long as there's no doubt that that video is an editorial production of BBC Persia. Thanks, --joe decker^talk 06:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Framebridge

Hi JoeDecker - thank you for your advice and help! My article was still rejected by wikipedia as not being neutral enough. I thought it was pretty neutral as I backed everything up with facts and references to articles from New York Times, WSJ, etc. I am affiliated with Framebridge as I work there- I tried to declare this in the process but it wasn't straightforward so I'm not sure if that was clear. Anyway...I'm not sure what my next steps might be in getting this page up? Any assistance you could provide would be really helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eszgordon (talk • contribs) 16:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you've made some improvements (thanks!), I still think some of the wording reminds me more of autobiographical marketing speak (e.g., "put together a team to build a digital solution to custom framing", but I'd continue to work with the reviewers as they continue to identify problems. One other nitpick, and it's not something anyone will decline the article for. Punctuation such as commas and periods should come before, not after references, see WP:PAIC. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 19:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Pocahontas pp

Thanks, that was prompt! I'm sure it'll all die down in a few days. Haploidavey (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and I agree it's likely to be a short-term burst of nonsense. --joe decker^talk 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at South Nashua's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

South Nashua (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Most welcome! --joe decker^talk 21:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Help for improvement this article. Thank you!Ngochue456 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm? --joe decker^talk 01:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Null Bot

Hi Joe - has bot stalled a bit? Files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old are about 14 days old and the parent Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions is therefore rather fat (18,000 files), and I guess it should be no more than 10,000 files under 7 days. The oldest one I found by random clicking was File:Robot Ponkottsu, Sun, Star and Moon Versions.JPG which reached 7 days on Dec 12th. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Awww crap, yes. --joe decker^talk 02:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, I think 7500 files to RevDel will keep my bot very busy tonight (at its normal 9 per minute!...) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help, and thanks for the note! There are days I miss trying to run this on my own server, but that had its own troubles too. So it goes.  :) --joe decker^talk 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

Marquardtika (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --joe decker^talk 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec17a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 21:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --joe decker^talk 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Balans

Hi there! I saw one of your bots undone edits by an IP on "Balans", which — as the GA writer — I thank you for. However, the IP seems to not stop reverting to his allegedly better version. Can you help me report him (or how do you proceed in such situations?) You can also check the disturbing message he left on my user page. Best or regards and thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not my bot--I'm very impressed by ClueBot, wouldn't want to take credit for someone else's great work! But I do see the fuss at Balans. It appears that the editor in question has been blocked, I'll try and keep an eye on the article and so forth going forward. Best regards, --joe decker^talk 16:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DeRosan has been accepted

DeRosan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

joe decker^talk 06:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure why I got this message, but so it goes. --joe decker^talk 16:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) {{AFC submission}} didn't have |u= since this edit. I guess, WP:AFCH uses the approver if |u= isn't present.​ — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @JJMC89:  :) --joe decker^talk 18:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Chikunda

Thank you for your helpful comments on the article I created on Chikunda: I've now cleared-up the ambiguities you noted and added some relevant categories.

regardsSscoulsdon (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sscoulsdon: Oh, you're most welcome! Those complaints were minor, but fixing them definitely helps readers. I use an add-on, I think it's User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js, to help me notice things like that, with that installed in your startup stuff links to disambiguation pages are highlighted in yellow. That has saved me from that sort of mistake quite a number of times. :) --joe decker^talk 18:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A second thank you for this useful add-on! RegardsSscoulsdon (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)