User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Lisa Hunt Article deletion

I could not follow the reasoning for deleting Lisa Hunt's article. She is a well known author and artist/illustrator. A simple web search should evidence this. I'm not sure what reputable sources you require as there were ones cited. Her professional credentials match or surpass many other similar authors and artists who still have Wikipedia listings. I would like very much for this matter to be reviewed once more and her page to be reinstated. Please advise how to proceed to get this accomplished, thank you.

http://deletionpedia.org/en/Lisa_Hunt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lisa_Hunt

http://kirileonard.com/women-fantasy-illustration-lisa-hunt/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KortKramer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note, and for understanding our preference for talk pages for discussion. It helps with a number of things, including the community's ability to make sure that any actions I take with advanced administrative tools are things I can be held accountable for.

Anyway, about Lisa Hunt, I'd be glad to explain further. I may explain things you already know, sorry about that! But I will try and be complete.

The article on Lisa Hunt was deleted after a 7-day discussion at our "Articles for Deletion" process. Generally what happens is that the article is marked as under discussion, and editors contibute your views on whether or not the article should be deleted according to our policies. With respect to the Hunt biography, the key policy can be read at WP:BASIC, and some additional information can be read at WP:AUTHOR.

As both the policies and the deletion discussion are written in abbreviated Wikilawyering jargon, I'll break that down, hopefully into something resembling English. :)

Generally, the "top line" thing we're looking for is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Signficant means, well, perhaps less than an article, but certainly more than a passing mention. A couple paragraphs, that sort of thing. Reliable sources generally mean newspaper artilces, magazine articles, book articles that have been through an editorial process, and which are not reprinted press releases, and are more than routine coverage (a thorough review is a much bigger deal than a calendar annoucement.) "Independent of the subject" excludes those sources where there is any signficant conflict of interest, not only reprinted press releases, organizations working with the artist or author, and so forth.

I realize that's a lot of ifs, ands and buts, and if I can elaborate further, I will.

My job in that deletion discussion, by the way, is kind of akin to a referee. The other participants indicate their views on the matter, I assess their arguments and weigh them based on whether they are in line with our policies and guidelines, and determine if there's enough of a consensus to act one way or another, and make a determination.

If you think Wikipedia should have an article on Hunt, and that the participants in that discussion were in error, the *best* place to start is to actually show someone that the sorts of sources we require exist. I'm happy to take a look if you think that's the case.

If you think that I've completely misunderstood the arguments the participants were making, on the other hand--that is, if you think the people there were saying "keep the article" : and I've gotten that wrong, then you would appeal that to deletion review.

Anyway, I've thrown a lot of infromation at you, and I realize our ways can be pretty conflusing, please let me know if I can help you make more sense of all of this! Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Joe and for "dumbing down" the Wiki-lingo. I don't work with it much so am not up on all of the ins, outs and requirements. I'd rather be out taking photos actually. :)

The bottom line is I want to get a Lisa Hunt page re-instated. If you can let me know what I need to do to make that happen, I'd be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KortKramer (talk • contribs) 01:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"If you think Wikipedia should have an article on Hunt, and that the participants in that discussion were in error, the *best* place to start is to actually show someone that the sorts of sources we require exist. I'm happy to take a look if you think that's the case."

Joe, that is what I would like and I would be very appreciative of your assistance. I wasn't privy to what the participants discussed, but would be happy to provide them. Hopefully sources would met Wikipedia's panel's requirements. If not, then a hard look needs to be taken at contemporary author/artists similar to Lisa Hunt's, like Meredith Dillman, Jasmine Becket Griffith, Eric Orchard and Stephanie Pui-Mun Law for example. All have wiki pages with similar content and types of sources.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KortKramer (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC) KortKramer (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I will be happy to look at what sources you come up with. I've tried to describe the types of sources we'd need to see, but let me know if if you have any questions. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe - here is a rough of our revisions. I've not formatted it to fit Wiki methodologies quite yet, but it should give you something to give me feedback on. Thanks:

Person

Lisa Hunt (born January 13, 1967; Spokane, Washington) is an American artist/author known around the world for producing detailed watercolor renderings of spirits, fantastical creatures, shapeshifters and other ethereal beings. Hunt's work has been translated into French, German, Spanish, Czech, and Russian.

Tarot decks by Hunt

• Shapeshifter Tarot, (1998) Llewellyn Publications • The Celtic Dragon Tarot, (1999) Llewellyn Publications • Animals Divine Tarot, (2004) Llewellyn Publications (Winner of CoVR Award) • The Fantastical Creatures Tarot, (2007) U.S. Games Systems • The Fairy Tale Tarot, (2009) Llewellyn Publications • Ghosts & Spirits Tarot, (2012) U.S. Games Systems (Winner of About.com Reader's Choice Best Tarot Deck, 2013)

Books by Hunt

• One is a Mouse, (1995) Simon & Schuster • Celestial Goddesses, (2001) Llewellyn Publications • Animals Divine Companion (2005) Llewellyn Publications • Once Upon a Time, (2009) Llewellyn Publications

References

"Lisa Hunt" Science Fiction Awards Database (sfadb.com). 1995-2008 http://www.sfadb.com/Lisa_Hunt

"Lisa Hunt" The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Vol. 4, pgs. 267 & 518 2005 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1320893.Encyclopedia_of_Tarot

"Lisa Hunt" CoVR Visionary Award, Best Sideline/Gifts Interactive, 2006 http://covr.org/2006awards/06sideline_interacti.htm

"Lisa Hunt" The Journal of Mythic Arts News and Reviews 2006 http://endicottstudio.typepad.com/endicott_redux/2006/09/the_animals_div.html

"Lisa Hunt" 2006 COVR Visionary Awards http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/07/prweb406192.htm

"Lisa Hunt" American Tarot Association Interview, 2009 http://www.ata-tarot.com/reflections/08-05-09/lisa_hunt_talks_tarot_art_a.html

"Lisa Hunt" Interview with Zsuzsanna Budapest, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecGZ_NYq9E

"Lisa Hunt" About.com Reader's Choice Best Tarot Deck, 2013 http://healing.about.com/od/rca/ss/rca2013-ghosts-and-spirits-tarot.htm

"Lisa Hunt" Women in Fantasy Illustration Interview, 2014 http://kirileonard.com/women-fantasy-illustration-lisa-hunt/

KortKramer (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kort, Thanks, I don't need formatting, I just need to sift through those to see if there are even two that meet our requirements. You've given me quite a number of sources that don't help me at all, so, to start, if you could please leave out:

Anything written by the author
Anything written by her publisher
Anything that is a press release (including anyting from PRweb or the like)
Anything that is on a site that is excluded from being considered a reliable source at: Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites -- hint, YouTube is an issue for that, but there may be others

I hope you'll find those relatively simple culls, and I'll be able to spend more time looking at the remaining sources at that point. We don't need 100--we just need two or three really good ones.

And by "good", they have to be reliable sources -- sources with an editorial process. Often this turns out to be a newspaper, a magazine, or a book.

This is going to be a problem for many web sites, and certainly any web site that accepts user-submitted content, generally you want a newspaper, a magazine, or a book, but there are certainly a few exceptions to that. Most blogs don't qualify. Each source needs to be independent from the subject (not the author, not the publisher, not a press release), and which discusses the subject in depth.

But don't worry about the fancy formatting and stuff, if I find the couple of sources I need to restore the article, I can certainly help you with the formatting. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe - I edited out the publisher and author links under References. There were no press releases. I'm not sure how interviews fall into the mix, I suppose it depends on the accepted validity of the interviewer and their impartiality. The other sources seem to qualify, but I'll let you be the judge of that. I appreciate you taking the time to help me out with this.

Best wishes - Kort KortKramer (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Also - I'm not sure if this source is acceptable:

http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Celtic_Dragon_Tarot

http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Hunt%2C_Lisa

KortKramer (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

KortKramer: A quick note: I haven't forgotten you, I have been caught in a very large pile of work, and hope to respond in the next 24 hours. Sorry for the delay. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe, thanks for the update. We're ready to hear back when you get the opportunity. KortKramer (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think there's probably enough here. I've "userfied the article" (I'll explain this in a moment) so we can do some cleanup on it before we return it to the main encyclopedia--once we do, it could be subject to another deletion discussion immediately--and I think some cleanup would reduce the chances of that happening.

The "userfied" copy is at User:KortKramer/Lisa Hunt, and you can edit it there.

Sources that should definitely be in the revised article:

The 3 Chesley awards have some signficance, but don't establish notability by themselves . As near as I can tell, SFADB actually would meet our reliability critieria even though a lot of editors will kneejerk that it doesn't because of the "DB" suffix--the vast majority o f such sources have little or no editorial oversight--even WP:IMDB is considered a questionable source around here. I suspect that, although it's from the same editorial process, using something more clearly attached to Locus magazine, in particular, [1], as the source for the nominations here would be more likely to be read correctly by our editors.
(maybe? probably?) With regard to the Encyclopdia of Tarot--can you tell me know much coverage Hunt (or her work) gets here? (Words, paragraphs, pages?) It may be signficant, it's hard to tell. I assume this is material that talks about her, rather than material she contributed to that encyclopedia.
Journal of Mythic Arts: I have to admit that I had doubts at first -- in particular because of the typepad.com URL. However, it appears to be a long-lived resource with an editorial process and I'm finding reeferences to their coverage in published books. When formatting this, definitely include a link to Journal of Mythic Arts when we format the reference, so people will be taken to the Endicott page--again, this is more about signalling to other editors and readerswhy the sources show notability here.
About.com Reader's choice, source that not only to the page that looks like an interview with her but the page above it (http://healing.about.com/od/tarotcardsdecks/ss/Best-in-Tarot-2013-Readers-Choice-Awards.htm ) that establishes a little more about the award

Sources that likely be excluded or minimized:

CoVR -- industry/trade association awards tend to be seen as marketing resources rather than independent recogitiion, that may not be the case here, but I think the sources above are stronger
Leonard and ATA interviews -- interviews tend to be seen as not being entirely independent

Source we probably need to think about more:

The youtube video of Z Budapest isn't really an interview at all, it's a review of Hunt's work. An individual video review is almost always going to be considered unreliable, etc., however, it is in fact Zsuzsanna Budapest, who is, I'm aware well-known authority in her spiritual circles. I'd include this.

While it is okay to include a couple of "external links" that might not be sources we consider reliable, more than a couple such sources generally are seen as a signal of marketing and/or conflict-of-interest, and it's best to focus on the best evidence, both for our readers and our other editors.

Once you've had a chance to do some cleanup, I'll try and pitch in and help with reference formatting, and move it into mainspace. You've made the argument that you've got new evidence for notability enough that I can do that, but, the evidence is not so clear-cut that I can promise you that someone won't start a new deletion discussion. Because of that, I recommend this "clean up, then move it back to the encyclopedia" strategy.

For references, I think there is, or used to be, a video on the "RefToolbar" somewhere in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and that helps me a lot with making formatted references. I'll probably be off-line the next day or two, and will be more than happy to help with refs when I return, but that video may give you some help going forward, too. Thanks for your patience. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've put a tag on the userfied article that may include a note to submit it for review at Articles for Creation. You don't need to do that, in fact, it'll probably confuse things if you do, I've put it there to let other admins know that this is a work "in progress." --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive work on this Joe. I'm reviewing everything you wrote, but in the mean time, here are scans focusing on Lisa Hunt's work from the 4th Edition Tarot Encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it does not have an online equivalent.

http://www.lisahuntart.com/Lisa_Hunt_in_Tarot_EncyV4.pdf

KortKramer (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe - I'm not sure what you want me to edit. I try to modify the References section, and it comes up blank in my browser, with only "==References== "

I'd like to get this listing back up and am not sure how best to proceed. Thank you again for your generous assistance. KortKramer (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kort -- Yeah, the references things are confusing. The top-level thing that helps to make sense of it is to know that references in the reference list are compiled from stuff in the text. Let me explain that more..

In the article, you will see a lot of places where the article has some material starting with <ref> and ending with </ref> -- the Wikipedia servers collect that information, leave a numeric footnote, and then put the material between those two tags into a properly numbered footnote in the footnote list. In other words, they "pop out" automatically in the text where it says <references/>

Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners may also be of some help in explaining how this works.

In any case, references serve two purposes. First, they show where we got particular information, we don't want editors just writing any old thing about a topic, particularly living people. Second, we look at how many and how solid those sources are to assess, well, we use the term "notability", but what it's really about is showing that there's enough reliable third-party material to describe someone that we have a hope of writing a completely fair, neutral (neither promotional or unfairly negative) article based on the best other information out there.

As it stands, the article reads a bit promotionally.

Here's an example: "Best seller" for one of Hunt's desks is sourced to a non-independent source, which comes off as advertising. If there are secondary sources that talk about how well that deck sources, then replace this with something more specific and replace it. I'd remove most of the material that isn't sourced to "good sources" I'd identified above, and make sure that information from the "good sources' is included in the article.

I know you would like to "get this going", and honestly, I could simply move this into place today if you asked. However, because Hunt falls within (in my estimation) in a grey area where I couldn't guarantee it would survive a future deletion discussion. I'm working toward the goal of an article that won't be deleted again. You'll have a better chance of avoiding a future deletion discussion if the article is primarily written from and referenced to the better sources we have, and if careful attention is paid to writing the material *not* like an author bio, but as an arm's length biography.

So what needs to be done? Check the statements in the article. Think about whether they seem neutral, and if they're backed up by "good sources", and remove them if that's not the case. That's the primary task left.

I'll check in again after I get my taxes filed, probably tomorrow. Thanks for your patience! Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate your help Joe. I'll work on rewording the appropriate items and making sure I have the best "neutral" sources possible.KortKramer (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe - I modified it to these references for the Lisa Hunt article. If you have the time, I'd love to hear what you think:

http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Hunt,_Lisa

http://www.rockwell-center.org/news/january-13-2/

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32806.asp

http://www.mastersoffantasy.com/artists/hunt.php

http://paganpoet.com/lisa-hunt-author-and-illustrator/

I wasn't sure about these:

http://www.artslant.com/ny/events/show/75597-fairy-tales-from-the-dark-wood-to-happily-ever-after

http://kriswaldherrbooks.com/main/2007/03/the-inspiring-art-of-lisa-hunt/

KortKramer (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There's still a number of issues, I'm afraid.

First, and this is a difficult thing to explain how to do directly, there are issues with the wording. The article still reads more like a self-authored biography (I'm not suggesting you're Lisa, I'm just trying to explain the style issue) than a neutral encyclopedia article.

I'll give a few examples to illustrate, but there are a goodly number of wording issues beyond what I've listed here.

"is the popular author/artist of many tarot decks"

"Popular" is the sort of attribute, both weak on specifics and long on positivity, that we generally "show, not tell" in a neutral article. We don't say Steve Martin is popular, although he is, his works/awards/etc demonstrate that more objectively, and give the reader a valid sense of "how popular", in a way that simply claiming it is.

renderings of spirits, fantastical creatures, shape shifters and other ethereal beings

This is a more the tone of someone explaining their work than how we'd imagine it being described neutrally by someone unfamiliar with the subject.

"is known around the world"

This only serves to promote, not to inform.

"bestselling"

In context, this makes a claim but it isn't a specific enough claim to do more than to promote the subject. To the extent that Hunt's works are "bestsellers" in some category or field, the claim isn't really meaningful unless you describe what that field is. Moreover, it's not a claim that should be made in an article without a reliable source completely independent from Hunt, and I'm worried that I haven't conveyed the importance of "independent" enough in writing biographies on Wikipedia. To take an example from another article I've looked at recently, The Martian (Andy Weir) doesn't describe the book as a best-seller without context, but it does say "The book debuted on the New York Times Best Seller list in the hardcover fiction category at twelfth position." Yes, that does paint Weir in a (deservedly) good light, but it makes a specific, well-sourced claim, and informs as well.

I still feel that too much of the article is based on non-independent sources as well, and the general approach of the article suffers somewhat from this.

I apologize again for taking so long to get back to you, work has been keeping me quite busy, the perils of being self-employed, I guess. I could move this into the "Articles for Creation" process and leave that process to help you rather than having you rely on me, but with a backlog of 2800 articles at the moment, I don't know that they'll be able to be any more prompt than I will. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Operation Choke Point

{{Db-copyvio}} of bits from several web sites pasted together, see User talk:Washingtonmonument for a list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! As I've done some editing on the article I'll let another admin kill it to avoid any appearance of inappropriate use of tools, but that looks like a good call to me. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

His other pair of edits were also a copyvio, I've fixed them up to be marginally acceptable. Essentially he's 0-for-whatever on that front. Too bad there's not a way to watchlist a user's edits. Then again, I should be glad or I'd have a lot of stalkers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a warning for copyright using {{uw-copyright}}, the next admin who comes by any putative new copyvios will know this editor has been warned that way. User watchlists would be fun, it's not hard to rig something up to check over the few people you're really concerned about, but to some extent, I think user watchlists would simply push people into more socking, so... whaddyagonnado. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: I added a stub for it after the speedy was processed, the stub is pretty half-assed; any improvements welcome. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check the deletion log - apparently a version of this page was deleted as an "attack page" in late March. Given the NPOV of the pre-gut edits of the version that just got deleted, there may be a connection of some sort or other between the primary author of the version deleted in March and the version that was just deleted, or perhaps it's just a coincidence, or perhaps someone needs to look into it further. If the editor(s) of the pre-April version were warned on their talk pages, they've edited or deleted the warnings - the only user talk page that links to Operation Choke Point is that of the most recent editor. Can you do an initial check to see if an SPI is needed? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turned out to be the same editor, but I'm guessing (with little personal experience at SPI) that there's not enough evidence there to get a CU, and not enough misbehavior to take additional action even if it was the same editor. Either he or she will go away, or they'll eventually get handed enough WP:ROPE, I'm sure. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Joe Decker
You did it right, I didn't know how to do it
best regard
Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 18:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Was there a neutrality violation in my OLS Article

I would like to know, well, what the title says.--Notsniwllewdrib (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome!

No, I didn't see *that* sort of problem.

I didn't really look into that at the time, because the article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opto Lighting Systems) itself calls attention to an issue which is separate, and likely fatal. Our WP:CORP guideline (based on our WP:GNG guideline) requires a certain amount of third-party coverage of a company from arm's length sources. I realize that those pages are full of a lot of Wikilawyering, but for the most part, you'd need to show that Opto has had signficant coverage in multiple, well, usually newspapers, magazines, books, that talked about the company in depth, that wasn't a press release or written from a press release, and that wasn't routine coverage. We call those guidelines "notability" guidelines, but it really has to do with the idea that in general, a Wikipedia should largely be a summary of what such highly reliable sources say, and if there isn't a sufficient weight of such sources, we should not have an article on the topic.

If there are such sources on Opto, then they'd need to be added to the article before resubmitting. Hope this helps! --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Coco (Application) Deletion

Hi Joe, I was wondering if it would be possible to discuss what steps need to be taken to reinstate the Coco (application) article and what can be done to prevent the prevent the Instanza (company) page from receiving a similar fate. It is currently marked as "being considered for deletion". Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, you would need to show multiple additional reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in detail. Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, despite the silly name, does a fairly good job at summarizing the requirements, and is a bit more accessible than the underlying policies of WP:GNG and WP:RS. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and additional resources, Joe. The situation is a little difficult because this is a startup company that currently does not want to publicize. Is there any way possible to simply have an 'About Us' section published on Wikipedia? I can assure you that there is no intention for self promotion. Also, evidence can be provided that supports that this is a fully functioning live product on iOS and Android. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In short, no, at least not at present. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, advertising venue or web host. It is our mission to create our encyclopedia based on fully independent, reputable, third-party sources, and that will exclude a variety of subjects that are not famous enough to have received the sort of sourcing that is required to meet our guidelines. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with your intentions, though, we do a terrible job at communicating to people what our policies and so forth are, and you've been extremely forthright, for which I am very grateful. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If I can provide third-party [reputable] references, would you be able to reinstate the page(s) so that I can edit the original article to include these new resources? Thanks again for your help and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If they meet the relevant criteria, sure, but given that a few editors have looked, that task may be difficult. Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH#Primary_criteria (the first few paragraphs from where that loads) is probably worth reading to get some additional idea of what we're looking for. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

How can I go about submitting the links for your approval? Or, do they need your approval? Should I include them within this conversation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, I've located several third-party sites that have done reviews on the product. I would like to request the ability to edit the entry so that it can be relevant and also adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.86.14 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi -- if you have a couple links (or descriptions of the off-line sources), I'll be happy to look at them here and make a call. If you disagree with my call at that point, I'd be happy to point you at the group where you could appeal my decision. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at these: http://www.addictivetips.com/mobile/real-time-photo-text-voice-sharing-app-coco-voice-comes-to-android/ http://www.maketecheasier.com/coco-voice-messaging-for-ios-and-android/ http://www.androidstatic.com/coco-voice-is-a-social-walkie-talkie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our policies (see WP:UGC are a bit strict with respect to sources, and most of those are going to be seen more as "group blogs" than as newsblogs with respect to the policy, particularly maketecheasier (which makes it pretty clear just how easy it would be to create one's own writeup there.) This doesn't rule out all on-line-only sources, but it does take out most of them. Anything else from a print publication? If you think I've erred above, your next step would be to appeal this at deletion review. If you'd like to get other editors feedback on whether those sources are considered to meet our WP:RS policy or not, a good place to do that is our reliable sources noticeboard. And again, I'm sorry this probably feels like a maze of bureaucracy... sorry 'bout that. Have a great day! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

State machine (LabVIEW Programming)

Hello, I just wanted to ask why I was sent to the what Wikipedia is not page for this one. I was very confused because I was trying to write it as a type explanation as to what a state machine is while having an example. Did I do too much with the example that it was possibly flagged as a how to guide? I was wondering if I could get a little more information as to what I need to do to fix it I am very new at editing and actually doing this for an English class.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Pohl (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and answer later tonight (next 4-6 hours)... sorry for being confusing, but I'll put together a longer answer then. Thanks for your patience! --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! Here's the issue as I saw it -- the article seemed to me to be more of a tutorial on the use of state machines in a Labview than a description of the topic, and we draw a pretty careful line between encyclopedic content (which should be here) and "how to" content (which is better placed at Wikibooks or Wikihow or the like. Looking around, I can see that there is a far bit of coverage of the specific Labview implementation of state machines in the literature--the key thing would be to put more emphasis on describing (based on sources) what those sources say about state machines, and less emphasis, much less, on examples in words and text. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Ekram Hossain

I am referring to following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekram_Hossain

Hi,

I have got a copyright violation problem stating "This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.av.it.pt/4TELL/news_DL_EH.html "

However, the link mentioned aforesaid is a public link and contain shared news (i.e., released into the public domain). In addition, I also have the copyright of the text (please find the attached link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.6683.pdf -- page 17). I was the author of the scholarly article and hence have proper copyright permission. I hope the copyright violation problem will be resolved soon.

I have also emailed to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License.

Mnwr.hsn (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're the copyright holder and confirm that through the permissions link, that will address the copyright concern. I don't recall the article (I've sorted through 300-400 articles today alone), but we often find that general self-autobiographical descriptions raise other concerns, generally concerns about writing in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If you are or are close to the subject, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe Decker,

Could you please have a look at the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekram_Hossain

The copyright violation refereeing the following website: "http://www.av.it.pt/4TELL/news_DL_EH.html " However, the website releases the texts as shared news (i.e., released into the public domain). Could it be able to resolve the copyright issue? BTW, I don't have any close contact or reason for biased-nees for the subject. I hope the issue will be resolved soon. Hope to hear from you soon!Mnwr.hsn (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble loading the www.av.it.pt website tonight here, but the wayback machine copy of that text [2] indicates "2013@4TELL Research Group - Instituto de Telecomunicações" at the bottom, and does not use the phrase public domain anywhere. If you've sent a permission request to OTRS (as you say you have), I'm sure they'll be able to sort it out. I did look at the text, it's not a problem, so once we get this bit of bureaucracy cleared up there shouldn't be any further trouble. Sorry this is such a hassle! --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe Decker,

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnwr.hsn (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Mnwr.hsn (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hi Joe Decker,

I have got a copyright violation problem in the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekram_Hossain

which stats "This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.av.it.pt/4TELL/news_DL_EH.html"

However, the duplication detector report (https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Fapi.php%3Faction%3Dquery%26prop%3Drevisions%26titles%3DEkram_Hossain%26rvlimit%3D1%26rvprop%3Dcontent%26rvstart%3D20140506224843&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.av.it.pt%2F4TELL%2Fnews_DL_EH.html&minwords=2&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers=) shows the the copied text mainly are noun and few data and which are not directly copied from the source as well.

I would therefore request to review the copyright violation.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks, Mnwr.hsn (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, no. [3], which is based on an independent copy of the page I referenced made nearer the time I filed the copyright report, finds an 84-word stretch that is letter-for-letter identical. I am having a great deal of difficulty assuming that you are making this last request in good faith.

Please note that, due to the way I've tagged this, the issue will be handled (if you have done nothing else) by an independent editor more familiar with copyright issues. You don't need to convince *me*.

Please also note that, if you have already contacted our volunteer response team, as you have previously indicated, they may also be able to help you.

But please don't play games with saying that "that text didn't come from this." There's an 84-word stretch of letter-for-letter identical text. I didn't make that up.

I will, however, make a point of indicating to the copyright review people of this discussion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I hope this issue will be resolved soon. Mnwr.hsn (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I do too. In my experience, it will take at least a few days, you can see the queue of backlogged copyright investigations at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Listings_of_possible_copyright_problems. The oldest there was a report made on 13 April, about three weeks ago, but not all of them take that long. If you did send email to OTRS, that might clear up things more rapidly. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I don't have any other intention neither biasing to publish the article. I was just wondering informing you might quicker the process. Really sorry for the inconvenience. Have a good day and thanks for your cooperation! Mnwr.hsn (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Speaking for myself, I'm a volunteer, there are nearly 2,900 articles waiting for someone to review, and when we do find copyright issues later, they tend to be incredibly consuming to deal with. Somewhere in the history of, I think it was Red Skelton, I identified a problem that had been introduced five or six years earlier, and we were forced to remove that many years of article development from our encyclopedia, and it took another volunteer editor days if not weeks to rebuild even something that had near the depth the original article had developed. If we're quick to jump on potential copyright issues, it is because, in the long run, it will save everyone time and ache. It's not personal! Have a great week! --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A Wikilowe message

	The Gordian Knot Admin Award
	For fixing a long-time twisted problem! Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks like it's been a challenging discussion, if I brought even a bit of closure to it, I'm glad. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

. Hafspajen (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Early close on Primecoin AfD

Howdy. I think you may have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (5th nomination) as "Keep" improperly early. It has been through four prior AfD discussions, and never closed with a "Keep" consensus before, so citing WP:SNOW after just four days of discussion as it would inevitably reach a consensus of Keep seems presumptuous. The third nomination, ending about 6 weeks ago, ended in non consensus, and the fourth nomination a week after that was closed after just two days of discussion with a consensus of "procedural keep" (i.e. most people felt it was renominated so soon the discussion shouldn't be reopened yet). I think the procedural keep ruling was correct in that case, but if you're going to actually weigh the merits of the keep/delete opinions, I think a full seven days should be given to allow people to respond. I am not an expert on the AfD process, so perhaps my understanding is incorrect. Could you explain your reasoning a bit more? ––Agyle (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be reading more into this than I am, but I've no objection to marking the keep as procedural. In either case, the article stays (at least as a result of the discussion), and in either case, the topic shouldn't be renominated (on similar grounds) for a few months. Even though I believe the difference is moot, you're probably right that it is more precise to include it.

It is not, in any case, a speedy keep (which is different, and might have been read as suggesting that the nomination was vexatious, which I don't suggest it was.) I hope that at least that was clear.

Do note, as a matter of pedantics, that our deletion procedure does not have a "procedural keep" as an outcome. Anyway, I've added the "procedural." And I do appreciate the feedback. Have a great day.--j⚛e decker ^talk 22:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your reponsivness. I agree on not reopening it, and am admittedly hazy on the whole "procedural keep" stuff (this is the first article in which I've even encountered the term, and I've weighed in on several dozen AfDs). Best regards, Agyle (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for actually paying attention at AfD--it's all too rare a thing sometimes! ;-) --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Quintin E. Primo !!!

Hi,

Please be specific as to why you didn't approve my article. You stated for copyright reasons. what are you refering to exactly?

Thanks, trish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishhoffman (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The material in your article appeared to be copied from [ http://www.capricapital.com/vhtml/newsroom3Dec12.html) ] and/or other sources using the same corporate boilerplate. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe,

We are the author's of the write-ups on Capri Capital and own the copyright. Can you please send me what was taken down so I can change appropriately?

Thanks,

Trish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishhoffman (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Should be in your inbox now. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article Vanna Bonta -- could you provide a copy?

I've been asked to have a look at the deletion of Vanna Bonta article.[4] I wonder if you would be kind enough to provide a copy of the article? I've read through the AfD, and see objections to some references, some peacock and some objections about the way she has promoted herself in the past (NTTP news etc). Notability does not seem to be the problem, even the original nominator to AfD wrote: "**comment - Upon further reading of the article, I will concede that is theoretically possible that if all the uncited allegations, peacockery, and nonsense were cleared away, she might actually qualify as a sort of third-rate Pia Zadora." by Orange Mike

Anyway, I'm not looking to have the article restored, I've been asked for an opinion on whether the entry can be rehabilitated. Thanks for your consideration 009o9 (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Email sent. Best of luck with the article! --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia

Dear Joe Decker, I feel somewhat confused as to what is expected of me in order to make an additional entry to the category Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia. At the moment there are only two entries and I would appreciate if you could kindly help me to include Mr. J.B. Elliott to the list. Could you kindly look at these three links below that support my entry and let me know what more I can do.

1. Newsreel Daily News A Chronicle of the day 1960 № 13 Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ghana John Banks Elliott present his credentials to Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Voroshilov. http://www.net-film.ru/en/film-10894/?search=p6%7cv2%7cs1 2. Newsreel Daily News A Chronicle of the day 1960 № 33 Nikita Khrushchev in the Crimea with governmental delegation of the Republic of Ghana. http://www.net-film.ru/en/film-10914/?search=p8%7cv2%7cs1 3. The Pittsburgh Courier › 9 April 1960 › Page 32 - Newspapers.com http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/40045823/ Dorothyelliott (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Thank youDorothyelliott (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Joe Decker, I have photos which could verify my entry I cant seem to be able to insert the pictures...Dorothyelliott (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe Decker, I think I managed to upload some photosJ. B. Elliott after presenting his credentials to to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev Moscow July 1960.jpg

File:Ambassador J. B. Elliott after presenting his credentials to to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev Moscow July 1960.jpg

Посол ж. б. Эллиот после представления его полномочия Председателя Президиума Верховного Совета СССР Ворошилов г-н в 1960 году]] </nowiki>

-->

Dorothyelliott (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

[[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ambassador J. B. Elliott after presenting his credentials to to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev Moscow July 1960.jpg|

File:Ambassador J. B. Elliott after presenting his credentials to to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev Moscow July 1960.jpg

Посол ж. б. Эллиот после представления его полномочия Председателя Президиума Верховного Совета СССР Ворошилов г-н в 1960 году]]

</nowiki> It took me forever to upload the above pictures, I hope it helps with my requestDorothyelliott (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll try and respond more later tonight, but I am fairly sure you've given me more than enough information to get that into shape. I would be glad to help. Sorry for the delay! --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! I've added a few references, not everything you provided, but some, to the article, and cleaned up some old versions, and added a bit of our usual formatting. My apologies if any of that stepped on your toes, but I hope that it will help you with figuring out how our references work, which can be very confusing at first. The big thing that was missing was the {{reflist}} tag, which, when the article is displayed, is where the various footnotes appear. I hope this is helpful, please let me know if I can be of further assistance. One you've added any other sources,e tc., you'd like to add, and so on, go ahead and resubmit the article for review. Also, as I don't have a subscription to the Pittsburgh site, I wasn't able to get the title to that article, if you know it, it'd be worth adding, but I wouldn't fret about it if you don't have it as well, it won't be a crucial to whether the article is kept or not. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, Thank you so much for your help, I truly appreciate your assistance. As a novice I am not acquainted with wiki codes or the terminology required. I don't think I should add any other piece until I have familiarized myself with the techniques. I have saved the pages and hope it can now go through with your help. I have no title to the article either, except the literal title 'The Pittsburgh Courier' It is part of their historical archives, I think digitally scanned for their repository at Allen Country Public Library Fort Wayne IN. If what I have submitted is suitable for entry, do I need to do anything else, or the submission is accepted and will be entered?

Thanks once againDorothyelliott (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You're doing a great job of picking up all the complexities of wikimarkup and such, there really is a lot to learn.

I took a look and helped out (I think!) with the images, I wasn't sure what the correct caption on the second image should read, or how you would want it in English, but I hope that that'll be easy to fix since I've put in a placeholder caption, I think you'll be able to find what needs changing easily.

One hint: When you insert images on Wikipedia, you never need all the http://en.wikipedia.org/.... stuff, once the image has been uploaded to wikipedia, you'll reference it (in those square brackets) with File:SomeFileName.jpg, not File:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/SomeFileName.jpg, I think that may have been one of the things that was harder to figure out about our image syntax.

No worries about Pittusburgh Gazette article title.

In terms of cleaning up the article, it's in good shape, the one concern that I have is that our policies have some specific requirements about the minimum amount of third-party independent coverage available on a subject to have an article. There is some subjectivity in those requirements "near the edge", but I feel that there's enough here to go. Particularly given that this subject is going to be hard to find the coverage that almost certainly exists on, because in part it's a historical subject and not all the sources are on-line, in part because some of the sources would not be in English. I take this to suggest that there probably *is* more coverage than you or I have found. There should be! If you would fix the second caption (or let me know what you'd like there, and I can help), resubmit the article, and leave me a note here when you've done that, I'd be happy to approve it. Thank you again for your contributions here!! --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, thank you for keeping an eye on me. The second image, the caption in English is 'Ambassador John Banks Elliott 9 February 2011' it was taken on his 94th Birthday in Maidenhead U.K., where he resides. I have a more recent photo of him on the 97th Birthday taken this year in February 2014 which if you think is more appropriate could be used

File:Ambassador John Banks Elliott on his 97th Birthday Maidenhead UK February 2014.jpg

Ambassador John Banks Elliott on his 97th Birthday Maidenhead UK February 2014

I have also added these photographs to wiki photos.

File:Kwame Nkrumah Ambassador John Banks Elliott Nikita Khrushchev.jpg

Kwame Nkrumah Ambassador John Banks Elliott Nikita Khrushchev meeting in Moscow

File:Ambassador John Banks Elliott Kwame Nkrumah and Anastas Mikoyan.jpg

Ambassador John Banks Elliott Kwame Nkrumah and Anastas Mikoyan meeting in Moscow

File:Tom Mboya of Kenya with Kwame Nkrumah and Ambassador John Banks Elliott.jpg

Tom Mboya of Kenya with Kwame Nkrumah and Ambassador John Banks Elliott

If you feel they could be added to the photo selection then I would be grateful if you could add them for me. Thank you once again. DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the 2nd caption, if you could go ahead and press "resubmit" on that article, I can move it into the main encyclopedia.

I'd recommend, right now, holding the article to about two images. Our editors push back a lot harder on images that are heavy on photographs and light on text, unless the images clearly convey a lot of additional information that a reader would come to learn about the subject. But if you'd rather replace one of these two with another, let me know and I'll show you how. Go ahead and press the "resubmit" button in any case, that's as easy to fix after it's moved than before. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, thank you once again I will go ahead and "resubmit" I hoping to keep the photographs for the time being as I will be adding additional information at a later date. I will be visiting J.B. Elliott shortly to give me some input behind the pictures. He is a great story teller and look forward to it. Thank you so much, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And thank you! You'll find the article now at John Banks Elliott. I bet the ambassador has some fascinating stories to tell from his time at work, it's unfortunate that we have to so carefully limit what we talk about here to things that are reported in third-party sources. Again, thanks for your patience, and best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, Help needed, I added category: Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia and Surname_Elliott, John Banks. I also added another ref:Report of the Conference of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations J. Delegates and observers attending the tenth session of the conference http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5573e/x5573e0t.htm but no matter what I do it bounces back incorrect can you please have a look at it for me. I also added date of birth to the bio, I am not sure if he was born in Elmina or Cape Coast I will find that out tomorrow when I call him. Will it be alright with you if I let you go through the things I want to add before placing? I want to build up the bio as comprehensibly as possible without trickling, so the next time I make contact it will be quite a substantial amount to go through. Is it okay?Dorothyelliott (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, forgot to mention in Category:Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia is filed under 'J' instead of 'E' thanks Dorothyelliott (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the alphabetization under E thing, I should have caught that earlier, and fixed a couple other problems.

The reference to the FAO was okay, but was returning an error because it was down at the bottom of the article, after the "Reflist" part. In general the idea is that the stuff in the individual references should be placed within the main article text, immediately after the text that the reference provides evidence for. So, "Joe Decker is 52" might be followed by a something in ref tags that point to a source that says I'm 52 years old. That sort of thing. The red error message that you were seeing in the article was coming from the ref being too far down in the article, past the Reflist. Hope this helps! --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, thank you for fixing it for me. I have added place of birth and his native name which is normally giving to all Ghanaians according to the day they were born under alternative names. I will get back to you as soon as I have sufficient material to present. Thanks again, Dorothyelliott (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dan Barnabic Article deletion

After your suggestions to check the reasons for deletion, it is strongly believed that the editors made a mistake and that the deletion rationale should not have applied for the above article. Therefore, you're kindly being asked to put this back for deletion review.

After being listed in Wikipedia from April 2012, over two years ago, and after getting an approval from Yobot, operated by Magioladitis, one of the 20 most active Wikipedians in the world, that the article was within the scope of WikiProject Biography, the present deletion cannot be taken to have any rationale behind it as from 2012 the subject of the article, Dan Barnabic, had been cited in various major media across the United States as an expert in urban studies, especially condominiums. This was attested also by major urban study experts Kimberly Winson-Geideman, Ph.D., prolific author on real estate and Professor of Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Law at the University of North Texas, Benjamin Gianni, Associate Professor, Azrieli School of Architecture and Urbanism, Carelton University, David Macdonald, Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa, and Andrejs Skaburskis, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen's University. You can check these attestations by going to www.condobible.com.

There is another problem which seems to stem from the selective decision by editors who may not be following the rules of Wikipedia listings of the articles. A cursory look on Wikipedia articles shows the articles of people that have by far lesser stature than Dan Barnabic, case in point is Mr. Brad Lamb.

The deletion is unfortunately causing Dan Barnabic great emotional and economic damages, by diminishing his image amongst his peers and public in general.

Your looking into it is greatly appreciated. ActionA1 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I take it you are new here. that's fine, but please understand that you have such a wide number of misapprehensions about how our processes work here that your response reads very poorly.

I will attempt to help you make sense of this.

First, we're talking about this discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Barnabic. My role in that discussion was to look at the discussion and determine what the consensus of participating editors was. Since the opinions of the editors was unanimous and were arguments made reflected valid policy concerns, no other outcome was likely.

However, that doesn't mean the article can't be restored. It does mean that you'll have to actually understand and address the issues presented in that discussion. If you can do that, and there's enough material to actually address the issues involved, I can certainly restore the article.

Before I get to "what you need to do and why", let me first explain why a few of your arguments don't really affect what's going to happen here.

That the article has existed for a couple years in no way indicates that it meets our policies. This is a volunteer effort, and in fact our standards have changed over the years. It is quite common for old articles to be deleted. Age is no indicator of meeting our policies.
Yobot didn't approve your article. Yobot, if it does what it always does (and I"m not even going to check, because I'm quite familiar with it) automates the addition of categories to articles. It has no role in the assessment of an article with respect to notability whatsoever.
That Yobot is run by a very valued Wikipedian is even more irrelevant, as a result.
WikiProject tags, including but not limited to WikiProject Biography, are automatically included in general as well.
"selective decision by editors who may not be following the rules of Wikipedia" - If you are going to make accusations against other editors about the rules of Wikipedia, it might be helpful if you first understood Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the practical environment in which they operate. Once you have done that (and trust me, you haven't yet), I would be more than glad to look at any specific allegations with regard to not following policy that you have to bring. However, before you do that, you need to understand one Wikipedia's most central tenets first. It is Assume Good Faith, it is explained more through the link, and you have already violated it. So you'll want to read that.
"A cursory look on Wikipedia articles shows the articles of people that have by far lesser stature than Dan Barnabic, case in point is Mr. Brad Lamb. " As I have explained previously, it is often the case that we discover articles, far after their creation, which do not meet our policies. There are a variety of reasons for this, one is that policy can change, but more often it's that Wikipedia does not have sufficient resources to effectively monitor every article simultaneously. We have an essay about the argument you are trying to make here, it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that page, which I recommend reading, reflects well the reason that your particular argument here is not of any interest to me.

So, what can you do to get this article restored? First, make sure you read what I wrote above. If you have any questions about it, I'm happy to explain in more detail.

Next, let's get to the actual policy reason the article was deleted.

The article was deleted, more or less, for not conforming to the our guideline on biographical notability, which you can find at WP:BASIC. The important aspects of it are more or less correctly, and far more concisely (if slightly humorously), summarized at WP:42. But many of the terms there have specific meanings with respect to Wikipedia policy, so I'll break that apart for you--I wish there was a more accessible document I could point you at for understanding that policy, but there isn't. I'll do the best that I can.

The way I like to phrase it is this. A topic on Wikipedia, particularly a living person, should have an article only if there are multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources which discuss the topic in detail.

By "multiple", I mean more than one, that is, two, preferably three--and each of them must meet all the other requirements.

By "reliable", I mean sources that meet our WP:RS policy. These are generally reputable newspapers, magazines or books, and very rarely web-based resources. A key aspect of sources that meet the WP:RS policy is not only surface-level accuracy, but a structure to the organization producing the work that involves editorial oversight. This provision alone excludes most blogs. Condobible.com is not going to pass this test.

By "independent", I mean there must not be, for any of these sources, any association between the coverage and the subject--it can't be self-authored, it can't be a reprinted press-release, it shouldn't come from an involved company, and so forth. Most of the best "reliable" sources are going to have this property anyway, but we still wouldn't consider a usually reliable source (such as the New York Times) to be independent on questions about the New York Times.

By "secondary" is probably less important for you to understand in this case, it largely rules out stuff that's more "primary reporting", ruling out things like scientific journal articles from individual studies in favor of broader reporting of the set of studies addressing a topic.

By "discuss the topic in detail", the subject of the article would have to be discussed (not quoted, but dsecribed) for a couple paragraphs of more, it's not required that he or she be the only topic of the article, merely a signficant subject of the article. Interviews, even if extensive, tend to be considered an issue, not because they can't be in-depth, but because of the independence requirement.

The editors involved represented that they looked at the sources in the article, hopefully did a few Google searches to see if they could find sources that weren't in the article, and found this article didn't meet those criteria.

To pick a particular example, [5] fails because of the independence requirement.

However, if you'd like to pick out the sources that you believe meet these criteria (and I realize I've thrown a huge pile of Wikilegalese at you, you don't have to get it right the first time), I'll be happy to take a look. On the whole, I would rather our encyclopedia contain articles about any subject that meets our notability criteria.

One more thing, and I apologize, this is a lot to read through, your words suggest quite strongly that you are or have some business or other association with the article subject. That too is fine, but if that is the case, I would strongly advise reading Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide as well, as there are policies that can easily be tripped over regarding conflict of interest. Your inclusion of comments about economic damage sound a little hyperbolic, but that's not an issue, what is an issue is that they approach, but do not yet reach the status of a legal threat, and well, you really need to read WP:LEGAL before you approach that any more closely.

I look forward to your reply, and getting this straightened out. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

List of sources establishing Notability

In response to your most recent correspondence of May 8, 2014, firstly, Mr. Barnabic wishes to express his apologies for the previous correspondence which might have been construed as being confrontational or legally threatening. No legal threat was ever mentioned nor contemplated. In the spirit of constructive and friendly arguments, here are the facts that should be taken into account when considering reinstatement of Dan Barnabic article.

The first and foremost source establishing notability can be found in this government link of the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2010-04-22

In it, one can discern the significance of Dan Barnabic as he assisted Members of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario. It establishes Mr. Barnabic as the founder and former President of Consumer Federation Canada which he formed as being responsible for Canadians and Consumer Reports.

In regards to this, Mr. Barnabic was covered in the major media over the years for his efforts in assisting Members of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario as a consumer advocate in the fight for Canadian rights against identity theft.

Proof of this can be found here in a link to archives in which a noted journalist James Daw with The Toronto Star highlights Dan Barnabic as President of Consumer Federation Canada and legal advocate on behalf of Canadians as the result of credit reporting errors:

http://archive.today/etIJ

Proof of this can be found here in a link to archives in which a noted journalist Tyler Hamilton with The Toronto Star highlights Dan Barnabic in a like manner, and with a stronger note of his lobbying and advocacy for stricter regulation of credit-reporting agencies:

http://www.canadastudentdebt.ca/forum_posts.asp?TID=2887

Proof of this can be found in articles by Mark Hume with The Globe and Mail informing Canadians of the extent/danger of identity theft issues due to system errors/flaws by citing Dan Barnabic.

Mark Hume, “Security breach lets criminals view Canadians’ credit reports”, March 2004 (page A1/A7), The Globe and Mail, Toronto.

Mark Hume, “Identity theft cited as threat after Equifax security breach” March 2004 (page A7), The Globe and Mail, Toronto.

Even though links to the articles may not appear, the reference to them appears in the following study (link below) “Countering Identity Theft through Digital Uniqueness, Location Cross-Checking, and Funneling":

https://ccsl.carleton.ca/paper-archive/pvanoorschot-fc-05.pdf

Proof of this can be found here in the CBC link of more recent origin

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/credit-reporting-errors-costing-canadians-1.1185972

Dan Barnabic worked to correct system errors/flaws as President of Consumer Federation Canada. He worked alongside Members of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario on behalf of Canadians and in his day-to-day life conducts the business of helping Canadians make sense of the system and ensure that they do not become one of its victims.

This all amounts to notability on the basis of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The significance of the coverage, it may respectfully be argued, should be taken into account.

Moreover, one may argue that The Condo Bible book is an extension of Dan Barnabic’s efforts to protect both Canadian and US consumers from the onslaught of developers dumping a real estate product on the market, such as condominiums, that very few people are well informed about and know enough about in order to make wise, informed decisions, so as not to become one of the victims of developers and other interested parties with no regard for the lack of honest resources on the subject of condominiums and therefore with no regard for consumers.

Proof of the value for consumers of The Condo Bible book -- and therefore of the book as an extension of the work and value of Mr. Barnabic to Canadians and US consumers -- can be found in the following statements made by the experts in the fields of urban studies and economics.

The statements can be substantiated by the letters of endorsement and the relevant parts read as follows:

“Barnabic’s expertise is invaluable to those considering condominium ownership and to those who may find themselves on the board of a condominium association.” Kimberly Winson-Geidman, Ph.D., prolific author on real estate and Professor of Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Law at the University of North Texas

“A timely, admirable book. Barnabic recognizes the paradox inherent in the idea of shared private property. He provides would-be buyers with a checklist of things to look for when assessing the financial stability and long-term viability of a particular condominium corporation.” - Benjamin Gianni, Associate Professor, Azrieli School of Architecture and Urbanism, Carleton University

“The prudence found on every page of this book will stand most condo buyers in good stead. Showing both the potential upsides and downsides of large investments in real estate is an important role that financial educators often rush past. That certainly cannot be said of The Condo Bible.” - David Macdonald, Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa

“A very useful guide for people living in condominiums or contemplating a condo purchase. It is well written and comprehensive.” - Andrejs Skaburskis

Furthermore, the major public media in both Canada and the US continue to attest to the fact that Dan Barnabic is a consumer advocate whose efforts should be of interest to consumers, particularly with respect to helping them make informed decisions on a not-too-well understood real estate product, namely, condominiums.

Proof of this can be found in the fact that Dan Barnabic is a writer for The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch - see links establishing Dan Barnabic as one of The RetireMentors:

http://www.marketwatch.com/retirement/mentors

Proof of this can be found in the following interview of Dan Barnabic by Pat Foran of CTV:

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=308781&playlistId=1.1733575&binId=1.813087&playlistPageNum=1

Proof of this can be found in the following link to the article written by Rob Carrick with The Globe and Mail on The Condo Bible book and its merits, including Dan Barnabic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/mortgages/what-you-need-to-know-before-and-after-buying-a-condo/article16313520/

Proof of this can be found in the following link to another one of Dan Barnabic’s contributions to The Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/mortgages/should-you-own-a-condo-or-rent-an-apartment/article16310515/?page=1

Proof of this can be found in the following link to the article written by Joyce Wayne with The Globe and Mail on The Condo Bible book and its merits, including Dan Barnabic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/living-in-retirement-im-sorry-i-ever-downsized-to-a-condo/article16798491/

Proof of this can be found in the following link to the article written by Duncan McAllister with the Toronto Sun on The Condo Bible book and its merits, including Dan Barnabic:

http://nebulix.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/W.SUN_.14.05.02.P22.pdf

Therefore, there are some inviolable statements referring to Dan Barnabic that warrant public record, on Wikipedia, for the notability of Dan Barnabic as a consumer advocate and author is undeniable. Lobbying with Members of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario on behalf of Canadians and producing material to the benefit of consumers everywhere is not only significant in and of itself and deserving of mention, but a substantiated fact in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject as has been demonstrated in this long and important statement.

Dan Barnabic has lived an unusually interesting life and donned many hats, being involved in a number of business pursuits as a true entrepreneur, boxing promotions (for the likes of George Chuvalo) producing “Famous Knockouts,” 24 half hour segments, and the fight for the rights of Canadian and US consumers. A little exploration of this will further work toward substantiating his notability on the above grounds.

Proof of this can be found in the following links of online verified boxing records:

http://boxrec.com/list_shows.php?human_id=414134&cat=promoter

http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=63831

Proof of this can be found in the following link to a show produced by Dan Barnabic called “Famous Knockouts” hosted by George Chuvalo and Spider Jones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFbvDhbxTWE

Check the following link to view the recent endorsement by George Chuvalo of The Condo Bible book:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx66rF7fAPQ

Check the following link to view the recent endorsement by Spider Jones of The Condo Bible book:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYRacdGErYY

In sum, Dan Barnabic is a notable consumer advocate, entrepreneur and writer “worthy of notice -- that is, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.” Some sources may be put into question, such as the CBC link you noted, but definitely there is more to substantiate Dan Barnabic as noteworthy and moreover, the spirit of the matter, namely that Dan Barnabic is a creative professional whose contributions are significant, should be taken into account. ActionA1 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks, we have a very intricate set of policies, and I'm not just making stuff up to make your life difficult. We really do care about producing high-quality, neutral, unbiased content, and that is our highest priority. Most of the sources (not sure if all), but many are going to be a problem, and I would like to help provide you some guidance so that you can point me at the few if any sources that might actually get us to a point of agreement.

In an attempt to make the specific requirements of Wikipedia policy more clear, I've attempted the first draft of a "how to tell if your subject meets our notability guidelines" discussion, which you can find at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. Writing that has been a tricky task, because it essentially is an attempt to condense dozens and dozens of pages of dense policy stuff (and trust me, I'm as frustrated by that as anyone) into something that someone new to our project has a hope of making sense of. It's probably full of grammar errors, spelling errors, and other embarrassing mistakes. But perhaps it will help, even so.

In particular, take a look at the 14-point checklist. If you would use that list to simply winnow the sources you've provided above, removing the ones that obviously fail one or more of the 14 points in that list, I'll have an easier time writing a long, thoughtful discussion on the rest of your concerns.

To the best of my abilities, I've tried to have that 14-point list reflect the policies and precedents we run under. For the most part, while I might be sympathetic to wanting some of those to change, my sympathy isn't going to win you the article back. It's not my job to override policy, it's my job to execute it. And an entirely unpaid job, at that.

Anyway, take a look, cut the sources that the checklist is going to clearly rule out, and I'll be glad to take the next step after we've done that. As a bonus, you'll have a much better idea, I hope, of what we're looking for, and that may help you think of other materials that would help you make your case in a way that I can act on. Thanks for your understanding. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Nektarios Tavernarakis

Thank you very much for your consideration and help in creating this article. The text has now been revised and hopefully it is not in violation of any copyrights. Please let me know.

Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.207.4.206 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Another editor should be around to review your article draft in the next week or so, please be patient, we currently have a backlog of around 2,700 articles to review. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Linux Deepin page removal

I am a long-time Systems Architect & Systems Developer who has lead several "start-up" organizations in successful development and implementation of cutting edge technologies, and I owe a fair portion of my success to open and shared environments such as universities, libraries, Internet (Wikipedia included), etc... Open-source software is also a wonderful resource for research and development advancements, and I believe removing the "Linux Deepin" page from Wikipedia should be revisited. I understand that there are literally many thousands of distributions on the 'market' and that most have at least 'a little' something to offer the world in the advancement of technology, but I do believe that this particular distribution is, by far, unique and established enough to warrant a Wiki page.

1. It is ranked #57 (12-May-2014) on Distrowatch.com which is hard enough to achieve (higher than Mandriva, Archbang, Vector, DamnSmall, Ubuntu Kylin) 2. They have developed their own entire Desktop Environment based on HTML5 3. It is one of the easiest versions of Linux to install and use for a 'newbie' - i have actually found none easier

This is a Chinese company which releases it's software in both Chinese and English (The latest release was mid-April just about the same time that this page was removed) therefore does not get a ton of publicity in the 'Western' market yet, but is certainly worth watching. I have personally downloaded, installed, configured and used over 100 separate 'top' Linux distributions, and Linux Deepin easily ranks in my 'top 10 for the average user' based on stability, ease of install/use, uniqueness.

I only found that this page was deleted because I downloaded their latest release for review (they are known for changing things up) and when going to Wikipedia for comparative research, i was stopped in my tracks. If you need a different article, different content, or otherwise help, please let me know as I would be willing to devote some time to get a proper page published.

Thanks. Kevin Hargis MassPhysiks (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the note.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding what we can and can't have an article about are pretty voluminous. We refer to those policies as "notability" guidelines, but it's not entirely about fame, the point of those policies is really to insure that there is enough very reliable, arm's length coverage of a topic that we can be assured that an article based on those sources is both accurate and more or less unbiased. (I realize we often fail at both, but ... we try.)

So having given you that background, the primary thing we need for an article to be kept in most cases, and in particular something like a distro, is a very particular type of coverage in sources. The relevant policy, in all it's overly legalistic glory, is at WP:GNG, and it's summarized humorously more or less accurately at WP:42. Even there, though, all the specific tests for whether a particular question like "reliable" is met are things that our policies and precedents have quite a bit of stuff around.

To appeal this, you're going to have to argue either (1) that I assessed what the editors in the discussion said wrong (they were unanimous, so I don't think this is your best option, or (2) you can find sources that show that the distro meets WP:GNG unambiguously, to me, that meet all the complexities of our policy wonkery. I would recommend (2) first.

I've been trying to put together a checklist to make those requirements a little more accessible, you might take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. Our requirements can be pretty hard bar for software distributions to meet (journalists are even a harder problem)--they tend not to get much coverage outside of blogs and mailing lists, which generally fail the need for editorially strong sources. But you are clearly more familiar with the subject than I am.

I hope you'll take a look and see if you can find some sources that would be appropriate. And I apologize that it is a pretty complex undertaking, and that I can't guarantee an outcome, or ignore all our wikipolicy. But I promise you I'll take a look.

Best regards, --Joe

PS: I should make it clear that sources don't necessarily have to be in English, if that matters. It may take me some time to look at sources that aren't in English--determining whether something is based on a press release is much easier to do in a language one speaks--and English sources are preferred where possible, but they are not required. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Solomon (art dealer)

Hello Joe,

I was hoping you could help me work through the process to reinstate the Thomas Solomon (art dealer) article. I had just added more references/citations before it was deleted and could add others as well. Also, I could edit the language further. Would you be willing to help me through this process?

Thank you for your consideration, Charlene

Ccboehne (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd missed you had been working on the article, and in view of that, I have reopened the AfD discussion. The most important thing you can do to the article is simply show that there are the sorts of sources that meet WP:BASIC. This is not a matter of *more* sources. This is a matter of needing only a very small number of serious sources which are completely independent from the subject, not press releases, probably not interviews, and so on. WP:42, while worded humorously, does a somewhat more accessible job at explaining our policy legalese than the policy pages WP:GNG and WP:RS do. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

Thank you for reinstating the Thomas Solomon (art dealer) article. I've added more citations since I last posted here on your talk page. Would you mind taking a look at them and giving me your input? That would be very helpful. Since the New York Times and Los Angeles Times are both internationally-respected publications, I thought those would be good to use in the references. Also, Gallerist is a widely-recognized art world news source.

On another topic, I noticed that people felt that the writing was too promotional. Would you mind pointing out text that is too promotional which I should edit or delete? Thanks!

Although Thomas Solomon personally shies away from press (he tends to be more of a behind-the-scenes kinda guy), his reputation is well-known in the international contemporary art world. I'm wondering if I should include some of the impressive articles about the artists he represents to show his influence in the current contemporary art world (even if the focus is on the artists, not him personally). Would that be advisable, in your expert opinion?

Charlene

Ccboehne (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charlene,

I've had to close the discussion as delete, at least for now. Showing impressive articles about the artists he represents is unlikely, in my opinion, to carry weight with editors in the future, due to a principle we refer to here as WP:NOTINHERITED -- the artist is not the dealer, or vice versa. We require in-depth, arm's-length coverage about the person we're writing about to write an article, our mission here is to summarize what's available in sources like that, policies around that are unlikely to flex, because they are so core to our mission.

Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Lovittc.seattleu/sandbox page

Joe- I apologize that the Sandbox page on "Humectants" was submitted for review. It should have never been submitted. I am using Wikipedia as a class project and my students are editing the sandbox page to gain experience in editing Wikipedia. I have instructed students NOT to submit the page for review. However, should the page be submitted again, please decline it. It is never meant to go live, its just meant to be practice.

I am aware of the ability to create classroom pages but this sandbox page seemed a lot easier to help students gain access to practice tools without forcing them to register for another account. However, due to the trouble this sandbox edit has caused, in the future I will utilize the classroom page.

Lovittc.seattleu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovittc.seattleu (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, enjoy! The page wasn't problematic enough for me to consider deletion, you're allowed wide latitude discretion in your own sandbox. If it does get submitted again, I doubt I'll be the reviewer, but I also doubt you'll see more than a decline. Thanks for clarifying, though, I was curious! Have a great day! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Stroker RC

Dear Joe,

Recently I got an update that my article got declined but I couldn't find the comments, moreover I actually based my submission as its similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLACK_EAGLES_MC in terms of content and topic,

Can you kindly assist me more,

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.187.35 (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, the short version of the explanation is on the article draft here: Draft:Strokerz_RC. Our general notability guidelines requires that articles contain multiple references to reliable and independent sources, generally news sources like magazines or newspapers, books, that sort of thing, that provide in-depth coverage of the topic. For Black Eages, the last two external links (which should be references, that article is far from perfect itself) probably meet that requirement. The "independent" requirement excludes social networking sites and the official site of the organization.

Understanding our notability guidelines can be challenging, but WP:42 is a humorous but accurate short version of those policies which may help give you a broad understanding of the requirements. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)