User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 16

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 14

→

Lisa Hunt Article deletion

Joe - where do we stand on this? It appears the original discussion has been superseded on your talk page with no easy link back to it. This is what I found. I'm still very interested in re-instating this page and just need a little further direction on how to proceed. What I provided should be comprehensive enough but I am always open to more input. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Decker&oldid=605166440#Lisa_Hunt_Article_deletion --KortKramer (talk) 13:29, 13 May 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'm about to be away for a week or two, so what I'd suggest is, after you've addressed these issues, hitting the "Submit your draft" button at the top of the Lisa Hunt draft you've been working on. Hopefully within a few days someone will be along to continue helping you. Thank you for your patience with all of this! Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your continued help and feedback on this Joe. I will reword my last revision. If I may inquire, there are many other similar pages for author/artists with even less "neutral" or substantial references in the same industry as Ms. Hunt that are still up on Wikipedia. Why are they not being targeted for similar scrutiny? --KortKramer (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

We get that question a lot, some of it is addressed at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I'll give you my own take. With 4+ million articles, and more people coming to this site trying to promote their own business or biography than actually working to build an encyclopedia, those of us trying to do the latter spend a lot of time trying to gatekeep things that are copyright violations, self-promotion, personal attacks, made-up hoaxes, all sorts of problems. There's often not enough hands to do the work that we'd prefer to have done. We've considered some pretty harsh measures, rather than blanket delete 60,000 completely unreferenced biographical articles I and some other editors started an effort a couple years ago that over two years added a reference to each (or sent it towards deletion, mostly the former). That took eighteen months, I personally located and added references to over 3,000 articles in that time.

As a volunteer. Because I"m here to build an encyclopedia, with neutral, verifiable information that in the long run people can trust for accuracy and lack of bias.

We don't have enough people for whom that is a goal.

Moreover, many articles predate some of or more restrictive policies, and there is, finally, a strange asymmetry in our policies--the requirements to create an article are slightly tighter than those required to delete one already in the encyclopedia--this too can create an impression of unfairness as well.

In short, there are several factors involved. We don't have an effective way of broadly implementing our policies over 4 million articles simultaneously. It's my hope that we continue to make progress toward that goal..

I'd work on other problematic articles on-wiki first, but as I speak, there are, as you can see at Wikipedia:PAFC, two thousand, seven hundred and thirty four other people, all new editors, awaiting review of their articles. Several hundred have been waiting four or more weeks.

Sorry if that sounds like a downer! But it's a reasonable (if frequent) question, and you have been patient, and deserve an answer. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, I appreciate the thoughtful respond and information. I do appreciate all that you and the other volunteers are doing here to make Wikipedia a better and more reputable online encyclopedia. As I said, I will be taking your suggestions into account with my next revisions. Thanks again. --KortKramer (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much! I hope it works out, I do think Hunt's article, carefully sourced, will avoid another deletion discussion. And thanks again for your patience with all of this. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Jarekus Singleton update?

Hi Joe

I created a temporary page for Jarekus SIngleton as you instructed on the temporary page. Trying to find out if this has settled the copyright issues. Please let me know

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jarekus_Singleton/Temp&action=edit&preload=Template:Copyvio/preload

Josh Lindner (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I don't see any immediate problem with the new version. The editors more familiar with copyright than myself should be along in a few days to clean up the article, hopefully it'll be settled then, but I don't forsee any other trouble if you've rewritten that. Thank you. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Josh Lindner: As of the second edit, dated 7 May, it's still too much of a close paraphrase in parts and there is at least one sentence ("The Jackson Free Press named him the 2013 Best Local Blues Artist") that is still copied verbatim from the Blues & Rhythm Magazine (UK) bio available here. At this point, I stopped checking. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

David, you're right, how embarassing. Josh -- the article really needs to be written in your own words. You may need to simply put the current draft aside and try and write the article text again, that may be less work than going back and forth. Thanks for your understanding. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello davidwr and j⚛e decker. I rewrote much of the article text and cleaned up the citations for the Jarekus Singleton article on the temporary page. Hopefully this will work. Please let me know when you can. Thanks much for your help. Josh Lindner (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There's still too much there that shares wording for goodly spans of words. I said before "You may need", I'lll now say "You will probably need" to simply put the current draft aside and try and write the article text again. That will almost certainly be less work than going back and forth, rather than trying to incrementally erase the history of the copy-and-pastes the article start with. I think this is wise for another reason, the article itself doesn't maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone, reading somewhat promotionally as a result. This is very, very difficult to do if you have any sort of involvement with an article subject, which is why we generally suggest people avoid doing so.

I will be taking a trip relatively soon and may not be able to respond promptly to future notes, so when you have rewritten the article, go ahead and put the {{userspace draft}} template on your draft and resubmit, another editor will be along to assist. Thanks for your understanding. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a completely rewritten version of the Jarekus Singleton article and posted it on the temp page with the {{userspace draft}} template at the top. It is as neutral as I can possibly make it. Hopefully this is acceptable. j⚛e decker Josh Lindner (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I did several spot checks and found the results good. No objection if someone wants to redo my work, but I've installed the improvement and redacted the old version texts using RevDel. Josh: I think we're clear unless someone else finds an issue. Thanks, everyone. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: I'm possibly offline until the 19th or 20th, if another editor finds an issue here, I have no problem with that being acted on by any other admin acting in good faith. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with this Joe Josh Lindner (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Thank you! --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Travails and Tribulations of Geoffrey Peacock

Hey, I was wondering if we can restore the article and move it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/The Travails and Tribulations of Geoffrey Peacock. I'd done some investigative work and found that none of the information was true. Even the one school that supposedly held a copy said that they'd never actually ever had a copy, and any mentions of the book were in places that listed Wikipedia (or at least its bibliography section) almost verbatim. The page itself was fairly new, but the book had been listed at Huxley's page since 2008, when an IP user added it. I've yet to find any actual proof that he'd ever written this book in any of the dedicated biographies about him in any format, so it looks to be a pretty clear hoax. Should we add the deleted AfD page to reflect that the book had remained on the article for about 6 years? I know the page itself isn't that old, but the book name itself is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've also warned the editor that created the page. Should have done that earlier, but just now thought about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Done - Not sure about the AfD but it I am always impressed by long-running and interesting hoaxes, I still remember Morton Schwartz (who I believe is on the list) from the WP:URBLPR days. --j⚛e decker ^talk 13:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty amazed that this hung around for so long. I think that it was partially because at one point someone did discover a new work by him (a script or short piece, I think), so it was conceivable that he could have other unheard of works. However this one seems to be blatantly false. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely! Thanks for thinking of our list of hoaxes, this is a stellar addition! --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it...

... if you put my Wiki page back up. And if you must omit whatever recent edits that were made that resulted in this deletion after nearly ten years that is fine. I find it completely unprofessional that someone after all these years would make an attempt to invalidate my place of work and accomplishments over 14 years. If anything rather immature to just cut me off that easily without contacting me directly to discuss your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genpadova (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This is Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia, and our policies and guidelines limit the subjects we can have articles on to subjects which have received substantial, reliable coverage in third-party sources--generally newspapers, magazines, and books -- rarely on-line sources. For actors and actresses in the adult film community, winning certain top-level AVN awards are often considered sufficient to meet this bar per WP:PORNBIO, but the community tends to read those policies narrowly. See, for example, the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#PORNBIO_again. The discussion on your biography which led to its deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gen Padova, and was, I believe, held in accordance with our policies and guidelines. That discussion tends to use a bunch of wiki-jargon, so if I can help explain of it, please let me know and I'll do the best I can, but I don't have the authority to override the decision unless more coverage (or a solo win of a top-level AVN award is demonstrated. I will be slow to respond to Tuesday due to travel. Best regards, and I'm sorry that I can't be of more help. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

New knot

About the discussion you closed. It was a content that was put up for deletion and got merged on the wrong place. At the this talk page half of the talk page is about this issue. There was a community process, and now a new article was created by an editor, [1], same content. This is disrespecting the consensus. This editor has quite a history doing things against advices and now even broader community consensus.

Notice that that there was a WP:AfD WP:Consensus on this topic of the involuntary celibacy, that said that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. Hafspajen (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC) OK, sorry, I see it got nominated for deletion again. Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think AfD is the right way to proceed, the question as to whether the academic is notable in her own right is not, a priori, ridiculous. I would add that the Talk page consensus is somewhat at odds with the later and also valid consensus that Celibacy was an appropriate merge target, there's no disrespect to either involved, merely the continuing and sometimes frustrating process of finding a broad consensus to a set of interrelated questions. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Enervee article

Hi Joe,

I was wondering if you could explain why the Enervee article got deleted and what we can do to get it up again (and keep it this time).

Thanks! Tara

Hi Tara,

The article was deleted after the short discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enervee , which unfortunately is not very explicit about the underlying issues. More or less, the primary issue preventing having an article on the topic at all is our WP:CORP policy, and the underlying requirements of our reliable sources policies and so forth. There is quite a bit to take in there, but for there to be an article at all, there must be a set of multiple, independent, third-party reliable sources (almost always things like newspapers, magazines, and books) that discuss the topic (Enervee) in detail. No such sources were found.

Underlying the specific meanings of "independent" and "reliable" in the specific sense those terms are used in our policies can be challenging, I've tried to produce a simplified step-by-step discussion at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable which can help.

It may very well be that our guidelines preclude an article on the topic at this time.

The editors participating also felt like the article read like an ad. Perhaps it will help to understand that Wikipedia is not intended to be a place where people paint themselves or their organizations in the light they would prefer to be painted in, nor, alternatively, in the light their competitors would prefer them to be painted in. We emphasize not only the availability of completely arm's-length, reliable sources about a topic (which is what the WP:CORP guideline is all about, but the idea that the article should for the most part be no more and no less than what those arm's length sources say about the topic.

If you are affiliated with the organizaion in any manner whatsoever I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Waksman article deletion

Hi Joe, I drafted a page for Gabriel Waksman and it was deleted - I think for copyright issues. I guess this is becuase I used text from his existing web page, though I have permission to do that. Do I just need to prove that I have permission to use text from his webpage? Or are there other issues that need to be addressed? This is my first article so I would appreciate your comments. Also, is it usual to have the article deleted from my sandbox? I thought that was a non-published space for me to develop the article? Thanks!

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim hoe (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and a little more than that. When you edit (look up as you respond to this, just above the toolbar, there's a message that says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." More or less, when you provide Wikipedia text or other materials, you are not only saying you own the copyright if any, but are now licensing it in such a way that anyone can use the text, commercially or non-commercially, for any purpose whatsoever. Which some people have objections to even if they wouldn't mind Wikipedia using the text itself--our policies require that our content be what's called CC-BY-SA licensed.

So, if you can do that (and how to is explained in too much detail at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, or if you'll tell me you'll just rewrite the copied sections, I'd be happy to restore the article so we can get that fixed, just let me know which. In the former case I'll have to wait for our OTRS folks to verify your permission, in the latter, I'll just need to do cleanup on the article history after you've made the changes. Let me know what's easier for you, and we'll move ahead. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe, The pages below now have a copyleft notice. http://www.ismb.lon.ac.uk/gabriel-waksman/research%20-%20t4s.htm and http://www.ismb.lon.ac.uk/gabriel-waksman/research%20-%20pilus%20biogenesis.htm Do you think this will resolve the issue? Many thanks, Tim hoe (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

On 2012-07-16 you deleted ISN 722, with a deletion log entry "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page". Your deletion log entry doesn't say which article this redirect pointed at, or list the AFD that triggered its deletion -- something I need to know in this case, as that individual is in the news again.

Can't I just guess at what name the original article was under? No. There is no one-to-one transliteration for Arabic names, plus the article might have been under one of his aliases, which could also be transliterated a wide variety of ways.

I checked your deletion log, from 2012-07, and I see you left similar deletion log entries for HAJI MUHAMMED, ISN 712, Guantanamo captive 712, ISN 649, Guantanamo captive 649, ISN 647, Guantanamo captive 647. Could you inform me of where they redirected to, as well?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I can respond more fully in a couple hours, I'm away from home and working via my phone and iPad here, but this appears to have been downstream of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz, which wasn't something I closed. The 722 redirect pointed at Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab, which is how I tracked that down. I am guessing, but will hope you'll understand that I don't recall this for sure, that I found the ISN 722 redirect after that deletion closed as an abandoned redirect. I'll try and answer the rest of this when I have a keyboard I can type functionally at. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks for the quick response! 722 is the one I need today. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

- Sure thing! The ones with the same numbers went to the same place if they had the same number, and nearly all of them had the same target.
  
  712-> Hammad Gadallah
  
  649 -> Mustaq Ali Patel
  
  647 -> Mustaq Ali Patel
  
  HAJI MUHAMMED -> Mustaq Ali Patel
  
  Best of luck! --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New Article Rejection - Paul Schimmel

Dear Joe, I would like to request that you revisit my draft article in articles for creation on the curator Draft:Paul_Schimmel, which you rejected on May 6th. It has since been majorly overhauled, and many sources have been added. I hope it will now meet with your approval. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewigged (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll will have to leave rereview for another reviewer, but if I had to review it myself, well, I'm still concerned about some non-encyclopedic, somewhat promotional sounding tone.

Best of luck in any case, and best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. Would you be able to point out an example of the questionable tone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewigged (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure-- I don't know how much rewriting you've done, but as I reread the article today (and please forgive me if it hasn't changed much, I often look at a couple hundred articles in a day), the places that concern me are not particularly large or glaring. A simple example might be the first paragraph of the Years at MOCA paragraph, and even there it's small things "vastly" came off more to me as a sales adjective, whereas the continuation into the next sentence giving objective numbers was powerful and neutral. A large number of cognitive adjectives around there (fledgling, hallmark, vastly, leading, championing, ambitious, speculative) also contribute to that impression (even if they're accurate). I'm not saying they all need to go, but I would prune, and work to focus the subjective ways we characterize the subject on places where we can't speak of those attributes more objectively, and/or places we can attribute those subjective opinions to the voice of real experts rather than Wikipedia. Finally, the list of 30 artists at the end of the paragraph feels excessive in detail as well, which is a minor issue by itself, but takes on the feeling of a promotional blurb through its repetition of famous names that honestly doesn't feel like it tells much about Schimmel. I hope this helps! Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia

Dear Joe Decker, I hope you had a good break. I have not been able to go over to UK to see JBE but its on my to do list. What I have here is the start, I think of a short bio, which I hope to add to the page. Can you please have a look at it and see if all is okay before adding. Early life: As we are aware, people with typical Portuguese, Dutch and British names in Ghana are the offspring's of former colonialists who came to the Gold Coast to settle or trade. The names carry on through generations. Born in 1917 to Gerald Barton Elliott and Mary Wood-Elliott, Mr. John Banks Elliott was named after his Grandfather who came to the Gold Coast as a timber merchant with attention to detail, one of his passions was photography, J. Banks Elliott's photographs of Gold Coast showing trading stations, factories, towns, markets and people taken in 1880-1890 is archived at the Bodleian Library of Commonwealth and African Studies, Rhodes House, Oxford. (two volumes reference number GB 162 MSS.Afr.s.1956) http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/online/blcas/elliott-jb.html Dorothyelliott (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Do you think its okay? Thank you. Dorothyelliott (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if I sent it to the right place. ThanksDorothyelliott (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dorothy! Sorry I had to move stuff around, when you tried to put back our previous discussion, you brought back a lot of other stuff that had gotten archived, so I tried to fix things up. Sorry for any confusion that created.

I'll have a longer answer for you soon, thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fine. "eye for beauty" gets a little more poetic than encyclopedic, and remember that we have to focus here on what's written down in reliable sources--our policies prevent us from using "personal communications" as references for a lot of material, but I think something like that is fine, and I do think some biographical information would help the article. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, thanks for going through, "eye for beauty" is typically me. I was referring to his photographs which are kept at the Bodleian. Can it be changed, maybe to, "with eye for detail" ? Yes, I will be getting more biographical information as soon as possible. I have given him a list of questions by phone which I hope he will have ready for when I get there. Are there any specific points I should include to make the article complete? Please advise. Thank youDorothyelliott (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dorothy: I wouldn't worry too much for "eye for detail", just trying to give you a sense of where we're aiming, that's not a big thing at all. In terms of biographical information, though, I have to say again that it's important that things we say about people need to be not only true but verifiable in third-party sources. So talking with the ambassador is a great way to get information, but it shouldn't go into Wikipedia until it's verified by those third-party sources. Thanks again for all your efforts on this article, I realize that our policies and such are intricate and not very well explained. But articles like the one you are working at are important, and I again thank you for your patience. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, I would like to add the excerpt above to the article started which will be continued... at a later date when I have complete synopsis of details for the rest of the article from JBE himself. Is it possible to do that? If so, can you please help me add it? Thank you for being nice to me. Dorothy,Dorothyelliott (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added most of that information, and fixed up a thing or two in the formatting. It's been a pleasure to help, the ambassador, for a number of reasons, is a subject Wikipedia might miss as a result of systemic bias for several different reasons. We can't go too far past what published third-party sources say, but I'm delighted to have an opportunity to help us include an article on something more than the latest pop star, shopping mall, or tech startup. And you have been extremely patient and kind as well. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joe Decker, Thank you for the addition and formatting. I do have a tendency to impart TMI, promise to keep it under control. Thanks once again. Dorothy81.204.38.26 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Sonny Bama article

I notice that you deleted my article on Sonny Bama. I see the nominator alleged it did not meet WP:MUSICBIO but I disagree. There are plenty of sources online to back the claims mentioned in the article. I was planning to add many more citations and references to show evidence of claims such as him being the in house engineer for super group Three 6 Mafia. Sonny Bama links to other artist pages and did have credible references that showed his credits as a producer, artist and engineer on these albums/artist. I believe the article could use a clean up and to add more sources, which I am able to add. There was only one nomination for deletion as of yesterday. Can yourestore the article and allow me to cite more sources? Thanks, Jdogg Shaw

No, I can't just restore it, the AfD discussion represents a community consensus and I can override if if there's strong objective evidence that it's wrong, but I can't do so arbitrarily.

What I can do, however, is if you turn on the allow email preference on your account, I can mail you a copy of the article and you can use that to work on Draft:Sonny Bama, which I think you had previously worked on. The folks at AfC may be able to provide some additional help in understanding our notability criteria (more an issue of WP:GNG than WP:MUSICBIO) and why some of the sources you had previously didn't meet our requirements, and perhaps help you narrow down the ones that may help establish notability.

The requirements for sources to show notability under our policies and guidelines are unfortunately fairly complex. I've been trying to narrow it down into a short explanation, and while this is still not complete, it is this simplest breakdown that I've been able to manage so far: User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the Cantata++ article

Hello Joe Decker,

I've just noticed that you have deleted my written article about the software tool Cantata++. I would appreciate to get an explication/reason for deletion of the article? Thank you very much, QARon (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article because a unanimous consensus of the editors participating in the discussion here felt that the topic lacked sources which would evidence the subject's notability as would be required by Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. --j⚛e decker ^talk 13:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And what if I am going to write the article again with (new) references and more sources? In my opinion the Cantata++ article was, or rather is, very useful – this software tool is known and also used by many companies all over the world. Furthermore I red a lot of articles in the internet and magazines. Sincerely, QARon (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have the sort of coverage the WP:GNG calls for, and clearly enough so that I think the community would unambiguously agree, I can simply restore the article, you don't have to go to the effort to recreate it from scratch before we decide whether it'll waste your time. The catch is, that what the community and our policies and guidelines consider to be a good source can be pretty non-intuitive, and require reading at least a dozen long, policy-legalese, dense eassys on the subject or more. I've been starting to work on a checklist that I hope can help here, but it is still working. I'll be happy to answer some specific questions, and as to looking for sources that other people have used before, you can search the archives over at our reliable sources noticeboard, and/or post there for advice. I hope something there is helpful.... let me know if you think the language has that sort of coverage is available. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer and also your help. I red your checklist (which is, in my opinion, very useful - good job, it helped! Go on ;-)). The last two days I was searching a lot for some "good sources". I found about 4/5 which may be helpful. So what will be the next step? Should I post them on the reliable sources noticeboard or may I post them here? The problem is, posting them on the RNS without the Cantata++ article, people won't be able to understand what I am talking about, do they? I appreciate to get another helpful answer from you, thanks a lot, best regards QARon (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC) .

Oh, just drop them here for now, and I'll give you my two cents, if I think they're unambiguously above hte bar I can recreate the article and you can add them there then, if not, we can figure out what to do next, but I don't want to subject you to more process than necessary. I'm travelling right now so I may be slow to respond until Tuesday or so. Sorry 'bout that. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello JoeDecker, like you said, here are some of my references I found during my research about Cantata++

* http://www.automotive-electronics.co.uk/ArticleItem.aspx?Cont_Title=Cantata+6.2+debuts+at+AAE

* http://www.eact-tech.com/Mailer/Cantata_6.2A_Technical_Overview.pdf

* http://www.cs.uef.fi/tutkimus/Teho/SoftwareTestingTools.pdf

* http://www.ghs.com/partners/qasystems_partner.html

* http://www.nohau.se/cantata

* and a book in which I found lots of information as well: Software Testing: Principles, Techniques and Tools. Milind G. Limaye Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2009. ISBN (13) 978-0-07-013990-9 Thank you for your help and I hope you had a good travel? Best regards, QARon (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Of the five you provided links for: 1,2,4,5 are more or less press releases, etc.

The third link looks to be independently written, but I don't know if it was published and put through an editorial process because I don't have the context for it, was that more a class handout, a thesis, a journal publication?

The book sounds very promising, more so than anything else here--it is reliable, has been through an editorial process, precisely the sort of material we would want *if* it provides *substantial* coverage of the language. I can't seem to verify that the book even mentions it through Google Books [2], but I know their search functions can be fussy. I don't need you to type in what it has or anything, but can you give me a sense of how much it talks about the language in quantitative terms? If there's enough there, that would give us one of the two sources we need, at least.

You're obviously familiar with the subject matter, does this diagram and the paragraph below it [3] discuss a general "this is how Cantata++ gets used" situation, or is it discussing some more specific scenario? If it's more the former, I could probably argue that this also qualifies as enough coverage to count as a source. It would still be (in my experience working with deletion discussions) argued on both sides.

Anyway, sorry this is such a slog! Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your extensive answer. It's a pity that press releases are not "allowed" to use in the english wiki, because I also wrote and red a lot of german and french articles where you can find lots of press releases. And it's also written in the german Wiki-Notability that press releases are more or less handled as good sources. According to the 3 link I am actually not sure whether it was put through an editorial process, but it seems to have, I think. It is like a thesis of a danish computing school, you can download it on their page officially.

Furthermore, the book I mentioned gives the reader a practical overview of software testing; that means, that it is not very specific but rather about generalities of dynamic testing which is sort of Cantatas aim. So, honestly I think that the book is pretty interesting to understand the main subject of dynamic testing by itself which is utterly necessary to understand Cantata at least. And sorry for asking you, but what is your question about this source [4]? What do you mean with "diagram & paragraph"? Where'd you get this? I'm a little confused ;-).

Last but not least I also found a lot of whitepapers, case studies and testing reports of Cantata on their page; some of them are not realized by themselves but by some other companies or experts. BUT they're all "branded", so it's like kind of commercial. This wouldn't be a good source would it Here you find an example: [5] ? Thanks a lot for all of your help and your abundance patience! Best regards, QARon (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation here)

I may have spoken imprecisely, you can verify some types of things with press releases, but they don't show notability. I've hired PRWEB to publish a few things about my own business, but none of those quality me for a biography on Wikipedia. But, to complete the analogy, if we did have a bio here on me, we could use them to verify uncontentious claims, such as the city I live in, or technical details.

The issue with opening the door to allowing articles to be based only on press releases is probably more obvious in the general context than it is for a programming language.

I realize my question about [6] was unclear. The question I'm trying to ask myself (with your help) about that page or so of coverage is this "Does that represent "in-depth coverage of Cantata++?", alternatively, does that page really tell us much about Cantata++, or is Cantata++ in that discussion, but not being used in a way that tells us specific things about the language?

More response later today or tomorrow. Thank you for your patience! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Eddie Jackson submission

The Eddie Jackson submission has been initially rejected. I had included references that I thought be sufficient , a newspaper obituary and imdb website item. In addition, I could add cross references to articles already on Wikipedia that mention Mr. Jackson and include much of the same info. This includes the entry for Jimmy Durante and for Lou Clayton and others. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lernerini (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for asking about this--the way you'd entered the references you'd provided left them invisible on the page, so I didn't see them at all.

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. I haven't entirely fixed the refs you've provided, but at least future reviewers will be able to see them.

Now, there are additional issues. IMDB is not considered a reliable source, for the same reasons that Wikipedia articles themselves are not, you can read more about why social media sites, IMDB, YouTube and/or Find-a-Grave are not generally considered reliable secondary sources at WP:External links/Perennial websites.

As far as additional sources, just looking through Google Books,

I would guess that those combined with the obit would reach notability (to be more specific, the number of type of sources included reach our general notability guideline. I saw your question earlier--is the problem a lack of sources, or is it notability? The answer is sort of both, we demonstrate notability under the GNG guideline by the existence of reliable, independent soruces providing signficant coverage of the subject. Enough of the right kind of sources, and we call someone or something notable.

Yeah, I get that that's confusing. I hope this helps! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

for poor creature

OK Joe, time will come when you become very unhappy from reason of that deletion... remember these of My words... Jakub Szymański — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

*laughs* Would you like to be more specific, so that I can act on that? Is it your plan to sue me, or are you threatening me physically? --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Brian Kennedy (Businessman)

Are you sure that this is a copyright violation? Looking at the page history makes me think that the same person wrote both, so this might not be a copyright violation, but both might be autobiographies with one being longer than the other. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Might be the same author, but they'd still need to go through the process at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials if we were going to retain the material. I tend to find that process pretty heavyweight for material which is doomed to be removed as promotional, however. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No concerns, to be clear, if you'd rather send this to Copyright investigations. They're badly overloaded, however. I've pulled the CSD, if you've a concern, there's no rush. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the draft of 321 North

Mr. Decker --

I received notice that today (May 16) you deleted the draft of 321 North for unambiguous copyright infringement of material from 321 North website. Two questions:

1. Would you please identify the specific paragraph or sections that infringed? I think the material was also cited as being from the 321 North website, but it's best to be certain.

2. May I re-submit an entry for review once the offending material has been removed?

Thank you.

Hugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugoott (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. :)

To be more specific, yeah, while we did not undertake a full investigation, some of the text was identical to text at http://www.321north.com/press.cfm?view=news&uid=60

This becomes an issue in part because, well, you'll note that above any window you add text, it says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." and below it, it says, "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." People never read that, but more or less, anything contributed to Wikipedia has to be licensed so that anyone can use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, even, for example, one's competitors. This is surprising to many people, who believe that they're only contributing to Wikipedia per se.

Yes, we'd absolutely give new drafts a new shot. Please do try and avoid using otherwise copyrighted materials, however, and please work to maintain a neutral, non-promotional tone.. Also, if you are in any way associated with 321, please read WP:PSCOI, our guidance for people who may have some sort of interest in the subject they edit about. But those guidelines aside, we're all here to build an encyclopedia, and while it can be hard to navigate our policies, we do appreciate people trying to contribute. Thank you! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. -- Hugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugoott (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Decker --

With your guidance, I have resubmitted the page for review. Using Web searches, I tried to eliminate any violation of copyrights, including removing a paragraph that seemed to cause the greatest offense.

Thank you, again.

Hugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugoott (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kennedy (businessman)

Dear Joe,

I new to this Wikipedia. I have removed the paragraph under the charity and philanthropy that you referenced was copyright material and rewritten the paragraph.

What do I need to do in-order to get the article live, as when I resubmit the article with the changes, it says its been blanked.

Thank you for any help in finalizing this article.

Regards.

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Darran, no worries, Wikipedia is a difficult place to navigate.

As I look at the article right this moment, it appears that the article is not blanked, but I can still see the problematic material. Is that what you are seeing at Draft:Brian Kennedy (Businessman)? --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I see what you were seeing, and I've corrected the "cleared" thing. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you can definitely resubmit again. I will leave that to the next reviewer (I think it's valuable to get feedback from different reviewers, and we have over 2300 people waiting for reviews at the moment, and only a few people doing the work) ... but I would say that probably the next issue to be addressed is making sure that the article is written as neutrally as possible. This can be very difficult for someone affiilated with the subject to do, and the article appears to be being edited by the subject himself, or so I might presume from the username. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Thanks for the speedy feedback - I have now resubmitted the article. When you refer to the article being written by user brian kennedy... would it be better to create an account in my own name and resubmit the article.?

Thanks inadvance for you comments.

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh! If you are the subject, you're welcome to keep the name, if you're not, you should probably consider asking to have it changed, it might mislead people into thinking you are the subject, WP:REALNAME explains this in too much detail. It sounds like it's the latter, I'd suggest making an account under a new name. Sorry for the inconvenience. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Protect Your Bubble Article Creation

Hi Joe,

Do you have advice on improving the PYB wiki page for approval. I've checked competitor pages such as Squaretrade and Asurion, and they both appear more marketing focused compared to PYB imo. I've included citations and kept the language objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trancemaester (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to look into both of those more, Asurion in particular looks like it's a problem. But let's focus on what can be done about PYB.

Our rules for what we can and can't have an article again (and again, I'm not saying that the other articles you pointed at are handling this consistently), we have a number of rules which are largely based on the need to have two independent references, at arm's length from the company, that are truly from reliable, journalistic sources--not reprinted press releases at various business journals, but organizations with a reputation for fact-checking. This is typically newspapers, magazines, books from reputable publishers. I could point you at dense thickets of our rules and guidelines about precisely what we mean by those words, but it is a thicket, I'm working on a more step by step way of explaining the requirements at User:joe Decker/IsThisNotable, and perhaps that will give you a roadmap of the types of material we're looking for.

Two such sources discussing PYV in detail, in depth, not just routine coverage, and we can have an article on PYB. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the page and included a lot more reputable citations like BusinessWeek and The Guardian among others. Let me know what you think. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Protect_Your_Bubble — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trancemaester (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to give you a sense of how this plays out in other articles: I have nominated Asurion for deletion. I suspect that it is possible that SquareTrade could meet our policies based on the coverage at VentureBeat and PcMag, but the article itself is horrible, and I'm still considering the right way to approach dealing with that. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I did end up taking an surgical knife to Squaretrade,I encourage you to look at what it looked like before ([7]), and what it looked like after (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SquareTrade&oldid=610390171). Interestingly, the strongest argument for keeping an article on that company appears to be a discontinued service. That's okay, we do history here at Wikipedia. In any case, I hope that will give you some sense of what we do and don't consider appropriate for inclusion in an article. I'm sure my efforts aren't perfect, but the article is much more appropriate after my changes than before. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Jay-P ‎ ‎

AlexanderGee (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Joe,

I have made a few changes to the Jay-P article. I will be very grateful if you can help me pinpoint more of the lines that don't seem neutral or have peacok terms. Meanwhile i am continuing to look at it from different angles AlexanderGee (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try and do a longer look tonight or tomorrow, it'll take some time. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Ok. Am also looking for possible ways to improve it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderGee (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry it's taken me time to get back. You've definitely made a lot of progress. Only a few comments after reading it through, and not all of them are really about promotionality.

Could it be that Jay-P simply wants to maintain a link between the past, present and future as far as music is concerned? Time will tell. - I think I'd recommend just taking this out. it's speculative, and reads a little more as if it's trying to create a sense of future stuff we don't know about.
The new breed of Ugandan music acts live in the midst of a global village by way of the internet which plays a crucial role in many aspects of their careers[7] - I think I'd recommend taking this out, I'm not sure it really tells us a lot of Jay-P, not in an objective way. The source is broken too.
I hear your use of nigga in the article, but I think you're going to get some pushback on that. I'd reword.
The sky is the limit. - Remove, sounds promotional
As a music leader of the mainstream, Wikipedia tries to avoid saying that people are "leaders" in its own voice, even when it's true. Also, the concerns about assimilation into mainstream hip-hop are pretty interesting, but make sure they're tied back to Jay-P himself.

Those are the main things I see, I don't know what the next reviewer will come up with, but I hope something I've said above is helpful in some way. Best of luck--and thanks for your work on the article! And your patience! Have a great week, --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Joe, i have made more changes based on your advice. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderGee (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Eddie Jackson article

I took another stab at it, adding some additional info and more substantial citations. I left in the IMDB cite, because I edited before I saw your note. You could delete it if that would get us over the finish line. I tried to get the references formatting better this time. I wrote some articles before, but it seems that the instructions are getting more complicated (or I am getting duller) in terms of getting the formatting right.

Lernerini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lernerini (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, can you resubmit this now, so I can approve it? Our reference formatting stuff is ... painful, it's not you, it us. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I have resubmitted. Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lernerini (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's now up at Eddie Jackson (vaudeville). Thank you! --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I added some links to the page at other Wikipedia pages, so the orphan status notation at the top of the page can be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lernerini (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done! Most notices like that, really uncontroversial stuff, I would recommend just removing after correcting, usually someone will put them back if they disagree, and then discuss it with you in our usual Bold, Revert, Discuss way of working. The only exceptions really are a few kinds of deletion notices, and they'll usually specify any prohibitions on removing the template pretty clearly in the text. Thanks again! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Ambre Anderson article

Hey Joe, I would like for you to reconsider the way you closed the deletion discussion that I was a part off on the Ambre Anderson page. I think your decision might be different considering that at leat one of those who voted to delete (User:Candleabracadabra) has since had their account blocked for sockpuppetry.
I have read here that "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets."
Thank you Triple3D 03:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right to ask me about this. While I don't recall at this time whether I head heard of Candleabracadabra's socking at the time I closed this (I close a great number of AfDs, and that name was on a few of them), I would have closed the discussion the same way in either case. Of the three new references you added at the end, the two I can see were not going to help establish meeting our WP:BASIC criteria. IMDB because it's not reliable (WP:External links/Perennial websites ), and TV Guide's content probably doesn't reach the what we usually agree to mean by "significant", in either case, that's something at least one experienced editor had time to review (Valoem, was it?) before the discussion closed, and it's not my place to entirely substitute my judgment with those of the other members of the community. If you feel that I've erred, you can have this decision reviewed at WP:DRV. If you want to keep an eye out going forward for more coverage that might help reinstate this article down the road when and if future coverage might be available, you may find an essay I've been working on helpful. User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. It's far from perfect, and not complete yet, but it is my attempt to nail down all the rules and precedents that tend to go into whether something meets our GNG or BASIC notability criteria. Thanks for asking me about this. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Terra Brakes

Hi Joe,

Wish you move your gentle General Advice up,

I need some hand holding while Terra Brakes becomes Encyclopedic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stanza6#Terra_Brakes

Thanks

Stanley Ravi Stanza6 06:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Sure. The central hurdle essentially ANY Wikipedia article must meet is Our golden rule, in other words, there must be enough out there written in reliable sources—usually magazines, books, and newspapers—so that we can write an article on the subject from those sources which has a reasonable amount of detail, is neutral, and is verifiable. That is, a reader can come to the article, see the references in the article, and relatively quickly come to see that what we are saying about the subject is correct and unbiased.

We talk about this "golden rule" under the name "notability", but the reasons for it are really about neutrality and verifiability rather than fame.

It can be hard to navigate Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and precedents surrounding what is and isn't a source that can be used to show a subject is "notable.." You may, however, want 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. I hope that it will be helpful. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Faruk Mahfuz Anam listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Faruk Mahfuz Anam. Since you had some involvement with the Faruk Mahfuz Anam redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 11:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Done --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York International Olive Oil Competition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extra virgin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Done --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Burdens of Feddal

George Burden wrote: Hello Joe, I appreciate you trying to protect my copyright on the Burdens of Feddal piece but since I both OWN the copyright and submitted the Wikipedia piece I am not sure that this is a problem.

http://lifeasahuman.com/author/georgeburden/

Let me know if there is a solution.

Cheers George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemburden (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

George,

It may or may not be a problem, we can handle that if it's the case, but let me make sure you get the implications either way, because our licenses here and stuff can be confusing.

If you allow us to use it, the license you are agreeing to (on every "edit" page, there's a note which says you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.. I'm a photographer, not a lawyer, but as I understand it, this essentially permits anyone to use the text for any purpose, commercial or commercial, in the future. Changes are allowed, but attribution must be given. In many cases, that's okay with people, and if that's the case, then we only need you to identify yourself to our volunteer response team (not me!) and they'll get it all sorted out. More information about that can be found at WP:Donating copyrighted materials.

If you'd rather not, that's completely understandable, I just prefer to catch these issues quickly. The alternative is catching this years down the road--testerday I had to redact copyrighted material from over 400 individual versions of a particular article, it took quite a bit of time, as it had been discovered 5-6 years after someone else had copied and pasted the material into the encyclopedia without proper permission. Better dealt with soon, in any case.

Thanks for getting ahold of me here on my talk page, and thanks for your contributions here! Let me know if I can explain anything in more detail. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eliane_Laffont

Hi Joe -

I spoke to some editors in the live chat, and they said that dot points were okay, as long as they weren't irrelevant. Could you have a quick look at the changes I have made to see if I am making progress?

Look forward to speaking with you, Kyla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylajwoods (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I thought I declined that article because of a copyright issue, not bullet points. According to my tools, there are still substantial portions of the article which are taken from other sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: The Google Cache of Laffont's LinkedIn page is not affected any change to protection settings on that LinkedIn account, even if the LinkedIn page is. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Friedman

Thanks for your review, Joe. I was hoping someone would merge the new draft over the existing article, and I thought that the AFC banner would be the simplest way to accomplish that. I did not want to proceed myself due to potential COI. According to the reviewing instructions I think the reviewer is encouraged to merge the article in such a case, but I can understand if this is not easy to accomplish with automation. Can you please assist with this? I appreciate your help. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Frieda, I can try and help. So the draft was to be a new version of the existing article? If you can confirm that's what youd' like, I can still look into trying to make that happen, before I get started, I just want to be clear I know what you're asking. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, exactly, that's what I was hoping. There were no intervening edits so it can be a simple overwrite and redirect I think. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay! I'm going to have to not handle this myself, but I can show you not only what I'm going to do to have that looked at, but how you can do the same thing next time. I moved the draft article into a place under your account, at User:Frieda_Beamy/Nancy_Friedman. You should be able to create those sort of working files too. Once you've got it the way you want it, just add a {{requested edit}} tag and a note about what you'd like, and someone will be along to help you, perhaps sooner, perhaps later. I'm sorry for the extra step! Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Joe. Just for my assistance as a potentially conflicted editor, can you indicate why you wouldn't be performing the merge yourself? Because if it relates to a potential judgment against notability I need to know that so that notability can be better established. Just trying to be sensitive. Frieda Beamy (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hip Hop Weekly (Magazine)

Greetings Mr Decker! My name is Sam T. and I recently submitted an article to you for the Hip Hop Weekly Magazine. Unfortunately it was denied, is there any possible way you can tell me why? I read something about images, but this if my first time using Wiki on this level so I am a little more than lost, thanks! I look forward to your response! Best, Sam T - Hip Hop Weekly Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Trotter1 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sam! I sure can!

The main reason I declined the article was one of our requirements -- pretty much every article on Wikipedia is expected to be referenced to two or more reliable, independent sources, things like newspapers, magazines, books, that talk about the subject in detail. Even a couple sentences, such as those that talk about the magazine at [8], could arguably count as one. The Miami Herald article mentioned here looks even better. I know adding references to articles is a pain, WP:REFB may help explain what's involved. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A reference to something which says that they won the Urban Music awards the Weekly won (a news article, or even the Urban Music Awards site itself) would also be just the sort of thing we're looking for. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Article rejected for copyright reasons

Hello Mr. Decker, You rejected my submitted article see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cable3/sandbox. I am happy to review your comments but I have one really basic thing I don't understand which is how can I keep a copy of the article in my userspace to work on it. I'm afraid it is going to be deleted. Thanks! Larry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cable3 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to see, for the moment, old versions of the article in the article history. At that page, click on "view history", you'll see a list of revisions you can look at.

Be careful not to use *any* of the text you copied from other sources. I really do suggest writing the text from scratch, in additionl to being copied from another source, the article *read* like it was taken from another source. Instead, try and make the article entirely neutral, encyclopedic, dull, and objective. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Advises for a new contributor

Dear Joe,

Sorry for disturbing you.

Thank you for your work and reviewing the article about Mister Mundiya Kepanga. I wrote this article because M. Kepanga will presenting his latest movie in New York and Washington and i suppose that people will want to know more about him.

Could you give me some advise to make this article better ? I'm sorry, i'm not very experienced. Do you think that there are peacocks (i just discover this word by reading advices to write better articles) ? I think the references are independent (news paper, magazine, production web site, and personnal web site) and numerous enought. Are the reference ok for you ? What are your advises ?

Best regards,

Marc Dozier

Hi Marc,

No bother, questions like yours are part of what I do here. I'm a volunteer, but I wouldnt' work at AfC if I didn't hope that we'd occasionally be able to help people get articles into the encyclopedia.

The main issue with the article were places where the article took on a personal, rather than neutral, encyclopedic tone. To pick out one example, "Adventurous and curious about everything, Mundiya Kepanga wants to explore other continents and assume official responsibilities in his village, where he is highly regarded due to his travels and experience." really draws conclusions about the subject's character, rather than letting objective facts speak for themselves, or, alternatively, conveying those more subjective views (e.g., Adventurous and curious) through attribution to some well-known source. It does sound like the subject is notable and encyclopedic, so I think if you can bring the text into a more objective form, I suspect you'll be able to get the article accepted. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Advanced Transit Association

Hey Joe,

I've added some more references - I hope that helps. Would really appreciate you giving it another look.

Was hoping to keep it quite simple - something along the lines of Light Rail Transit Association.

Thanks! Alexis macleod (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you've addressed my issues. If you could resubmit it, I or another reviewer can take the next step. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellis Traub's Rational Value

First of all, Joe, thanks for jumping right in and acting on my submission. I was prepared to wait a month or so, after reading the caveats that automatically accompanied the acknowledgment of my submission.

I'm new to the 'neighborhood' and am eager to be a contributing member in my area of expertise.

In looking at your objection; i.e., the lack of 'notability' of my topic, Rational Value, I fully understand what you're getting at. While I have seen this term in increasing use among those who practice the kind of fundamental investing I have taught over the last couple of decades, there is precious little information out there that substantiates either the efficacy of the term or interest in it. And that is precisely why I'm so interested in finding a way to see the term take its place in the lexicon of investing. It's an important concept to help separate those who buy stocks to own them (as fundamental investors do) and those who buy them to sell them (as traders and those who play the market do).

I could use some advice and help, here. Perhaps I need to introduce this term on other pages where it would be appropriate. I'll look around for such opportunities.

Again, thanks for your input and assistance in helping me find out just what I have to do to introduce this term via Wikipedia.

EllisTraub (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your note.

I think you've gotten near the heart of the matter, Wikipedia policies talk about "notability", but what's really being discusses is the body of reliable, third-party, arm's length coverage that exists. The principle is that in general our articles should be written primarily from such sources, and without a minimum level of that sort of source, it's difficult to write an objective article that discusses the topic, particularly when it turns to subjective matters, in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. As such, Wikipedia does (or at least, in theory does) lag the rest of the world a bit. In general, the best way to get the term some light is to have experts, represented by things like newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and arm's length books, and we take it from there.

A little bit of that sort of coverage might be enough to get it mentioned in an article such as value investing, but it's unlikely to do so based on a book and methodology that hasn't gotten a response elsewhere in the literature. And of course, with more of that sort of coverage, an article can and hopefully in the future will be warranted. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My Article - Paul Schimmel (curator)

Hi Joe,

I'm wondering if you would be willing to take another look at my article for the curator, Paul Schimmel Draft:Paul_Schimmel, which is waiting in articles for creation. You initially rejected it, and provided some feedback. I have since re-edited it. I am trying to illuminate Schimmel's contributions to the field without sounding promotional. He is an extremely influential curator, which I believe the sources support.

Also, I would like to change the title to Paul Schimmel (curator), to distinguish him from the the other Paul Schimmel, about whom there is already an article written. But, I don't know how to do that.

Thank you for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewigged (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Done It's up at Paul Schimmel (curator) --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please cancel my submissions and close my account, thanks

Thanks for reviewing my submission.

The term “Naturopathic Esthetician” is my invention and registered trademark. This is a standard and rigid procedure which I developed after being practiced in Australia since 2001 and in the United States from 2010.

I trained many licensed healthcare providers but none of them is interested in learning it like I did - four years undergraduate, two masters degree, over twenty years practice and continue improvement.

I suggested the California State Board to improve current skin care system using my method and they invited me to design the new curriculum. But when people heard the Board is going to implement a new regulation from Jan. 1, 2015 (after I discussed with the Board for five years), many of them try to against the new development and others start to announce they are “advanced” naturopathic esthetics but in fact they are not. They don’t even have patience to learn the advanced concept, because many people nowadays are money driven.

Los Angeles County observed these circumstances. The County’s business department and employment department strongly recommended me to register for a trademark and input the standard procedures I created to Wikipedia so that prevent public from being misleading as there are too many unreliable information about natural health. I did follow Los Angeles County’s suggestion to upload my invention to wikipedia because I believe this is benefit to the public health. But if you don’t want to list the term I contributed, that is not a problem for me. I did it not for my personal interest and I did not mean to advertise because I don’t need to. You can delete my submission or ignore it. Thank you for your time. I provide some link for your reference: http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/about_us/meetings/minutes/20131021.pdf (Harvard School of Public Health is also interested in my invention of Naturopathic Esthetician), and http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4802:g134he.1.1 you can check my standard Naturopathic Esthetician information by key in my trademark series number. Again, I don’t care there are so many people used my initiated name “naturopathic esthetician”, if not because of Los Angeles County’s kind suggestion, I won’t even registered the trademark and tried to make wikipedia submission. I have the unique knowledge and skills, that’s most important.

Thanks, Hilda Zhang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gccnp (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to close your account, but I understand your reasons for leaving. Best of luck to you with your efforts. Regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just made a mess

Hi Joe, I just made a mess. I was looking at some AFDs, and closing some, and in doing so, I saw relist notices from you, and misread the dates, and now I had a few opened that you relisted, and then me, seeing multiple relists and no comments, closed as no consensus. I will try to undo them, but if you see any that I missed, feel free to revert. Sorry about that. Go Phightins! 02:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries! It's a wiki, everything can be put back. If I can do anything to help, let me know! --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I did more or less the same thing last week. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I think I used my newly issued mop to fix most of it, but I may have missed something here or there. Again, if you find anything, you are more than welcome to fix it and trout me at a later date. I'm new to this whole admin thing; it's a little more complicated than !vote and move on :-) Go Phightins! 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're gonna have to try much harder than that to earn your trout... :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oversight

I dealt with that, as I happened to see your edits in my watchlist. Thanks for bringing it up :) - Alison ^❤ 01:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick work! --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Social Contract with Business - declined in 1 June

Dear Joe,

       Thank you for your quick response.

My submission on the Social Contract with Business is based on similar Wikipedia submissions on new/innovative management techniques/systems. For example "Blue Ocean Strategy' researched and developed by 2 academics only; Team B - an initiative by Richard Branson and friends only. The Social Contract with Business is a similar new innovation in business science and practice. This innovation is underpinned by 8 years of research and writing. At the moment I am the only writer on the topic, but I understand that others are also now working on the topic since the silence have been broken. Regarding the various Wikipedia criteria, I wish to comment as follows: Neutral point of view: "the submission looks like an advertisement" - here I can improve by removing my name and the cover page of my treatise. If you have other suggestions - please let me know. Verifyability: I am the only researcher/writer on the topic. I have listed my two books already published (a research monograph and a treatise) + a wide range of other accredited publications supporting directly/indirectly to advance to relevance of the Social Contract with Business, i.e. 'building a healthy society through healthy businesses'. Original research: The original research per se are not given - this is referred to in my research monograph, Titled: A Social Contract with Business as the basis for a Postmodern MBA in a World of Inclusive Globalization - a critical metasynthesis (dissertations.com). What I have submitted is a summary of the key outcomes for the use by decision-makers in business. Notability: The Social Contract with Business is notable in the sense that it answers classic management questions as stated in the opening paragraph. To advance global sustainability a number of 'firsts' had to be developed (see paragraph 4.3)

Please re-consider, and advise me as I do not wish to withhold this new innovation from the broad business and academic community. Thank you, Jopie Coetzee — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaJooste (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your question, and I know it's a mess to try and figure out things work around here, and let me just start by saying that I'm sorry that that's the case.

I am sure there are other articles on Wikipedia with a promotional tone, in addition to working at "Articles for Creation", I do a lot of work at "Articles for Deletion." Were I to approve the article as it stands at AfC, another editor--and nearly any editor may do this, would likely eventually bring it to "Articles for Deletion", or begin the work necessary to remove the promotional tone within the article. It would be better done by someone knowledgeable about the subject. In fact, it's possible that this is sufficiently obviously an advertisement (for an idea, if not a book, our policies don't distinguish commercial advertisement from the advertisement of ideas) that it would qualify for speedy deletion under our G11 criteria. WP:G11. My point is here is not to yell at you, but to say that even if I were to throw all our policies out the window and approve your article "as is", the result would be, a few days later, that your article was deleted.

That is not my preferred outcome, and I'm guessing it's not yours, either.

With nearly 2000 people waiting in line for attention with pending AfC submissions, I will not be able to rewrite the article for you, or give you a line by line critique. But I can certainly point you at some of the more obvious issues in the exposition, and perhaps those can give you other ideas for improvement.

Let us start with the "Key research outcomes", which was easy to pick out from the 15 repeated bold uses of the word "and". The problems are deeper than the abuse of bold and repetition, it is a rhetorical appeal demanding the correctness of the model being described, and there is nothing like it in any way in blended value or freemium to compare. It is, at least in tone, an opinion. Opinions are never to be placed in wikipedia's voice. Only verifiable, objective facts. Opinions can appropriately be communicated in limited quantities through quotes attributed to reliable parties.

More generally, encyclopedic articles should not be written in a Socratic style. Instead, use boring, objective, simply descriptive language that contains verifiable statements backed by reliable, arm's length sources. To the extent they don't, they end usually end up violating our WP:ESSAY and/or WP:OR policies.

I gave you some sincere advice at the article. I really tried to tell you what it takes to write an article that won't be soon deleted on Wikipedia. I hope you reconsider that advice. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IP Address conflict

Hi. Which portion of WP:NOT do you feel this AfC violates? How would you suggest it be improved to address your concern? Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jeff! Sorry that I wasn't clear, I should ahve left a comment with the article. The particular issue is described best at WP:NOTHOWTO #1, most of the article content appeared to reflect "how to diagnose IP conflicts". The $64,000 question in my mind is this--is it possible to say much more than a definition about IP conflicts when the "how to" is striped out. If not, we'd probably have to include whatever other information there was into an existing article, and maybe make "IP address conflict" a redirect to that.

If on the other hand, there's significantly more we can say about such conflicts that isn't just a "definition", and isn't "how to diagnose them" in a procedural sense, we can, I wasn't seeing it, but I'm open to it. The term is common enough we should do *something*, even if it's only a redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Joe. Thank you for your quick responses. It seems I missed your comment below the denial when I posted above. I will take the time to carefully address your concerns, but not tonight. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and absolutely no rush! Happy to help you sort through this. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kanawishi re Planet of Light

Delete it. I'm through. The item that you have identified as a personal essay is, in fact, a description of the foreword that Raymond F. Jones himself wrote for the book and which you can see for yourself if you go to the bottom of the article and click on the link to the Internet Archive. A description of that foreword does not belong in the plot summary, but the foreword is part of the book, so a description of it has to go somewhere. Since February I have written and submitted articles on three books on your Science Fiction Novels list (Five Against Venus, Son of the Stars, and Planet of Light), I have written good descriptions of those books, and I have encountered only roadblocks. This is just too discouraging and I don't have time for this, so delete all three submissions, because I'm through.Kanawishi (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience, if you change your mind, drop me a note here and I'll be happy to give you a very few pointers that will help you have a much better experience here. I think it is a damn shame that a basic introduction to our general notability guideline and WP:OR policies aren't required before people start putting the sort of large-scale effort you've put into these articles, to avoid the feelings of frustration and anger you're feeling. Unfortunately, a trial to see how providing some of that information before article creation would play out was veto'd by the Wikimedia Foundation a year or two back, for reasons that have never made sense to me. in the meantime, we're left with volunteers such as myself trying to enforce policies toward 2000 editors at a time, most of whom have no idea what the "bar" is for an article being kept. It's a frustrating situation for us all. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibril Haddad

Can you recheck I think it's 2 Deletes (including nom) to 0 Keeps. -- GreenC 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Often I am not convinced that two opinions is enough to prove much, but I think in this case.... --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm normally an inclusionist but thank you for rechecking. To keep would mean arguing for IAR and that was hard to do given the low Google Scholar count. -- GreenC 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)