User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/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

→

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
27	Robert E. Lee High School (Montgomery, Alabama) (talk)	Add sources
1,246	Miss USA (talk)	Add sources
3,613	Frank Zappa (talk)	Add sources
243	Cleveland Hustles (talk)	Add sources
2,476	Markiplier (talk)	Add sources
4,438	Radiohead (talk)	Add sources
54	United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (talk)	Cleanup
464	Video game music (talk)	Cleanup
337	Christmas dinner (talk)	Cleanup
5	Fumio Ueda (talk)	Expand
60	Andean Volcanic Belt (talk)	Expand
8	New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. (talk)	Expand
1,001	Beauty pageant (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4	Distributive writing (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
904	Sports in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,541	Punk rock (talk)	Merge
80	Miss Florida USA (talk)	Merge
1,656	Progressive rock (talk)	Merge
21	Morgan Burrett (talk)	Wikify
33	T. A. Madhuram (talk)	Wikify
8	Focus on the Family Singapore (talk)	Wikify
3	Kasetsart University Kamphaeng Saen Campus Stadium (talk)	Orphan
8	Adaptive Redaction (talk)	Orphan
20	Michael Barryte (talk)	Orphan
5	Epiphany Philosophers (talk)	Stub
34	Miss Kansas USA (talk)	Stub
6	National Geology and Mining Service (talk)	Stub
32	SWAT: Global Strike Team (talk)	Stub
28	Miss Oregon USA (talk)	Stub
38	Miss Delaware USA (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the page Creately

Hello Jo,

I noticed that the page Creately is deleted again, before I had a chance to update it. I'm sorry that I failed to update the page with notable citation before the second deletion (in the debate as well). However now I have managed to make the necessary changes to the article and include credible citations to it. I would really appreciate it if you could help and guide me in restoring the new article in Wikipedia. Thank you!--Shalinrc (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Shalinrc. Most of the sources in the page I deleted are fairly weak; perhaps you could write up a draft on Draft:Creately and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation? As advice, a) if you are in any way connected to the software (say by being its developer), say so somewhere on your userpage, and b) don't use sources which do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocking User:Jvm21

Thanks for the block; immediately after I wrote that message at ANI, I noticed that it was time to leave for work, and apparently I forgot to do anything otherwise whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Mumbai Juniorthon

Hi Jo-Jo

I am very surprised by yuor decision to delete the Mumbai Juniorthon article. How can you think it doesn't meet WP:GNG? It has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. News articles explicitly and solely dedicated to this subject are numerous if you Google news search it,[1] and these include reputable papers such as Times of India and The Indian Express. Please could you consider reinstating it, as it is very clearly notable. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Amakuru. In the opinion of all the folks which commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumbai Juniorthon, there wasn't enough coverage to deem the topic notable. Not sure if these sources you mention and I see were considered insufficient or missed by the AfD participants; @AKS.9955, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Ddcm8991, and Anupmehra:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the ping. Obviously the AfD is the clearest explaination- unfortunately the article failed on a whole gamut of requirements. In my particular case, (the lack of) persistence and depth of reportage were fundamental. If you look at the article histories, you'll see that after the (second?) CSD was withdrawn, I did (without bragging) more to bring it to a decent Wiki-state than anyone, I think; so you can imagine the amount of time I spent looking for sources. Those were the best I could do- and I knew that if it came to an AfD, they wouldn't stand up. Indeed, I felt a bit of a hypocrite being unable to support the article I had spent a far bit of time on! And if not a hypocrite, then a bit of a prat, anyway.

As someone said in the AfD, most of the sources (like those above) were not focussed on the event itself, but rather, the celebrities who attended it. Also, someone else ;ointed out that if this event is repeated year on year, it is almost certain to gain notability- and as we know: WP:NODEADLINE. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I opened Google search link to figure if I missed something; nope I did not. If "Mumbai Juniorthon" was a person, I could possibly have a different opinion. But it is not, and being an event imposes additional requirements. I believe it is nearer towards the end in between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT, and by the end of year most probably hit it very well. Anup [Talk] 21:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG applies even if other topic specific criteria for inclusion do not. I'm still not clear why over 1000 newspaper articles dedicated to this topic does not qualify for significant coverage. It's really an open and shut case, as far as I can see, but I will evaluate the sources further in the coming days in case I'm missing something. — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales logos

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. Your close for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 14#Green Party of England and Wales logos mentions that File:Green Party of England and Wales logo.svg is above the TOO off the US, but it did not discuss the non-free use of the file itself in various individual election articles. The FFD I started had to do with (1) whether both files needed to be non-free, and (2) whether their non-free use was appropriate in infoboxes of individual election articles. Number 2 is a moot point for File:Green Party of England and Wales logo cropped.png since you deleted the file, but as Stifle and I posted in the discussion, we feel the remaining file's non-free use does not comply with the NFCC for the individual election articles. I am bringing this up because the remaining file has now been added Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2014, Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016 and Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2012 as a replacement for the cropped version you deleted. This file's use in these articles not only fails WP:NFCC#10c, but also WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 as exaplined in the FFD. I could simpoly just remove them per WP:NFCCE, but I wanted to confirm your close first. Can you clarify how your close applies to the non-free use of the file in articles other than Green Party of England and Wales and perhaps add a {{Oldffdfull}} to the file's talk page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Huh. Seems like the logos were restored after I closed the discussion, they weren't there when I made the usual pre-close check. The discussion had clear consensus (as much as such low trafficked discussions have, anyway) that the use of the logos in the election articles was incorrect, so they need to be removed from the election articles. I've amended my close accordingly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for re-checking. Should you be the one to remove the file from the above-mentioned three articles or can anyone do it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it works either way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Understand. I'll remove the logos and leave a link to the FFD thread in the edit sums. One last suggestion is that it might help clear up any potential misunderstandings if Template:Oldffdfull was added to the file's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That is done as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anyuyskiy Volcano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aa. 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) 10:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-39

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

If your wiki wants numerical sorting in categories you can request it after a community decision. See how to request it. [2]
When you edit text and mention a new username they are notified if you add your signature. Before this only happened under certain conditions. [3]
Users are notified if they are mentioned in a section where you add your own signature even if you edit more than one section. Before, users were not notified if you edited more than one section in one edit. [4]

Problems

The MediaWiki version that was supposed to come to the wikis two weeks ago was put on hold again because of new problems. The MediaWiki version after it is now on all wikis. [5][6]

Changes this week

There will be no new MediaWiki version this week. [7]

Meetings

You can join the next office hour with the Wikidata team. The meeting will be on September 27 at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Abandoned tools on Tool Labs could be taken over by other developers. There is a new discussion on Meta about this. It will be discussed until 12 October and then voted on. [8]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:leaving

I've re-enabled my user e-mail and will contact you via WP email tonight re: the long and ugly conflicts. We hope (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DYK nomination of Aluchin (volcano)

Hello! Your submission of Aluchin (volcano) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent article deletion - 2015-16 Sussex Senior Cup

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus Can you help? You recently (yesterday) deleted the article 2015-16 Sussex Senior Cup. Can I ask why the article was deleted? Presumably for failing the notability test? I'd understood that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it includes third party sources - as were cited in the article. Various secondary sources (primarily articles in different newspapers) exist, including those included in the references and some of the match reports shown in the article. Thanks. Peetred (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Peetred:. Technically, the article was redirected and not deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Sussex Senior Cup. Folks there evidently didn't consider the third party sources there sufficient to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'd like to challenge that view as there are a several third party sources (four in the article and there will be more). I'm not entirely clear how I go about that process. Are you able to reinstate the article please? Peetred (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Peetred: Sorry, but I cannot simply override the opinions of the other people in that discussion. Now as for "there will be more", what sort of sources are we talking about? Only local coverage is often considered insufficient at AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit

In the media: Wikipedia in the news

Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content

Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens

Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét

Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I don't know why you mentioned me in your close. I said "familiar" is in TITLE policy, and it is, so your statement to me makes little sense. I don't think we read policy in isolation from one another but I am not here to contest that, just your unclear message. As for usage, the dictionary is usage, and even the dictionary, not in America, says the primary meaning is the state. [9] Finally, your page view message actually makes little sense, since the page views went to New York City, under the title New York City (that's not under the title New York, so it can't support New York as the title) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Alanscottwalker:. The dictionary point was not discussed much in the RfC and both the name policy and the primary topic guidelines talk mostly about how a term is used by people in general, not just dictionaries, so I didn't consider that (also, not considered at all when closing the discussion but worth noting here, I see some dictionaries - non-English ones mind you - cite the city first. And what determines the priority of city vs. state for a dictionary?). The point about page views is chiefly about what people are interested in, which the primary topic guideline also emphasizes as a possible criterium for deciding what the primary topic if any is. I think your reading the "familarity" bits of TITLE as TITLE policy requires that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject is very questionable, generally we consider all people when assessing a consensus unless they are socks, banned or making very bad arguments. Hence I specifically named it in the close, maybe I need to specify a little, though (I also don't think it would have affected the result one way or another). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The TITLE criteria explicitly requires familiarity with the subject, are you seriously arguing that those unfamiliar with a subject write encyclopedia and that's what policy favors? As for page view determining primary topic -- you have just divorced title from topic so you are saying nothing about title - 'interested in', they have shown interest in it under the title New York City - so that says nothing about the title New York. I take your point that dictionary were not much discussed (so its reasonable for the close not to discuss it), but dictionary list by proper usage, primary meaning, secondary meaning, etc. (And, how can non-English dictionary even begin to be relevant, here?) And let me be clear, I think your discounting of the 'this is my personal idea of what it means' was spot on but then to now suggest you would also throw-out WP:RS dictionary makes very little sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I shall respond tomorrow. A dictionary alone is not a strong source - it might be an outlier for example, or their criteria are radically different from ours so that they don't answer our question. It probably would have been better to bring it up during the discussion so that it could have been assessed rather than now. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It probably would have, but that just means defective discussion not based in RS. That's fine. As your close noted, more discussion in the future is required, or everyone could just move on and leave things the way they are. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, after a bit of sleep I'll add a few things. It is true that the page view metrics given are not necessarily a good indicator of what people expect to find when searching for New York, but it is a reasonable proxy and a number of people did discuss them, so I did consider it reasonable to include them in my closure. As for the "familiarity" question, I am not convinced that that bit of the policy can be read procedurally, and I think that even if it were it would not have affected the outcome of the discussion either way - a number of people did explicitly address the historical/political role of the state and still came to the conclusion that it isn't the primary topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you mis-perceive the role of familiarity in the discussion, as that is in response to the arguments that someone could not reasonably understand it, or expect to find New York under New York, when anyone with familiarity in the subjects of New York and New York City is at the least very familiar with such terminology for the state and city, as it does exist in RS, and even on Wikipedia in multiple references to New York. But sure, the !vote numbers are what they are, this time, and we all know how that works. (As a side note, your "lean" comment, in the close, although it matters not on the end, really makes little sense given all the support, at the least, for a disambiguation page not an article and the explicit expressions of no primary topic, which you would have to add to the support for New York at New York.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There were a number of opinions that the city is the primary topic, although many of them were along the line of "If anything it's the city". Not a consensus, just a "lean". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sean Lee-Davies

Came across this article (which you deleted)while new page curating & nominated it for deletion. However looking at my watchlist I see that it has already been created and deleted as a resukt of an AfD... and something seems to have gone wrong with my nomination, since it is appended to the old AfD. I assume it can be speedied as a recreation of an article deleted after an AfD...TheLongTone (talk)

@TheLongTone: Yep, the curation tool posted your request on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Lee-Davies, beneath the prior discussion, rather than creating a new page. Seems like a bug to me, maybe something for WP:VPT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, somebody else slapped a speedy on it & it's now gone...only contacted you because you were the deleting admin.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sean Lee-Davies

Hi Jo Jo, I am surprised about your consideration for deletion of Sean Lee-Davies Wiki page. It stated that it is an orphan link. But actually I have linked it to Chinese version, other pages like TYCOON TALK and JENNIFER TSE. May I know what's the problem behind?

Appreciate your detailed reply.

Best, Chankahay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chankahay (talk • contribs) 11:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Chankahay:. Folks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Lee-Davies decided that the topic does not meet our WP:N guidelines and was written in an advert-like fashion. That the Chinese Wikipedia has a page on her means either a) that they have different guidelines on what can have an article or b) that they haven't deleted it yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about deletions

You have deleted articles of notable people yet ignore articles of less notoriety. I care not to waste time on here creating an account ect, But you leave Jason Johnson up and delete Tina-Desiree Berg from the same film. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.175.180 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, folks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina-Desiree Berg decided that the topic did not meet WP:N. I can't find a deletion request for "Jason Johnson" so presumably I didn't delete it because nobody has asked for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, Jason Johnson (actor) has a lot more to his credit than a few bad movies, though I wouldn't be surprised if the article was deleted eventually. clpo13_(talk) 18:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-40

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 October. It will be on all wikis from 6 October (calendar).

Meetings

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 4 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tidy will be replaced. Instead the HTML 5 parsing algorithm will be used to clean up bad HTML in wikitext. This would cause problems on a number of wikis. They need to be fixed first. [10]

<slippymap> will not work on Wikivoyage after 24 October. You should use <mapframe> instead. If you need help to fix this before 24 October you should ask for it as soon as possible. [11]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Gala Wilton F.C. deletion

Hi Jo-Jo,

Why has the Gala Wilton F.C. been deleted when it had references from various news articles, links from football websites including the F.A., and it was linked into, and from, many other Wiki pages such as the Gloucestershire County Football League?

Norman777111 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Pardon, Norman777111, but I don't remember deleting any such page. Perhaps you can link to it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo,

I don't know how to link to it but here it is from a copy I saved on my local hard drive:

[Copy of the page text removed - I don't think that posting text whose history has been deleted is OK from a copyright perspective]

Norman777111 (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gala Wilton F.C.. Silly punctuation. Well, the folks there think that the topic does not meet WP:N due to lack of sources as well as the club being a comparatively small one. Links from other articles and websites unfortunately do not count towards notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the seven image/source reviews you did during September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Anyuyskiy Volcano

On 5 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anyuyskiy Volcano, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that eruptions of Anyuyskiy Volcano in Siberia may have inspired legends of places where hunting is banned and smoke and fire rise from the ground? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anyuyskiy Volcano. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anyuyskiy Volcano), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo

Please may i know why you marked y article Tito Da.Fire for deletion cos am new to Wikipedia articles and i could really learn from it

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopswod (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Bishopswod: The folks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Da.Fire decided that there are not enough reliable sources to write an article with and that the current article was written overly promotionally. Your new version has very bad formatting and is completely lacking in sources, so it's unlikely it will be allowed to stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Red dot

Hi Jo-Jo
Thank you for taking the time and the trouble to answer my query about red dots and maps. However, my frustration and your help does not get me any closer to a solution. I still think the red dot system is a waste of time.

Regards
RASAM (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. You have new messages at OGfromtheGut's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marking this for archival. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Help request

Hello, Good Day!

Thanks for enhancing Wikipedia and have impressive work.

Hope you will help and guide me for creating pages within my area for informative purpose. I created Jain Farm Fresh Foods Ltd page two time to provide information about that new born company, not for their promotion. Need your help to create the page and change the language as informal, requesting do not go easy of Deletions. Guide me where I was made my mistake.

That Company is working with Coco-cola for enhancing the livelihood of small farmers with there project called Unnati. If there is promotional or vanity language, help me to edit it.

Some more informative links I collected about the company take a look

Thanks. - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 19:30, 07 Oct 2016 (IST)

Greetings and good day as well, Mahajandeepakv. Keeping in mind that I am not overly familiar with Indian businesses, I suspect such sources will not be considered acceptable for Wikipedia - one has been discussed in the deletion discussion and the other don't look independent or reliable at all. Writing articles on businesses is really hard as most sources one can find for them are not enough to establish notability. And unfortunately, most businesses cannot have articles written on them because they aren't notable, and That Company is working with Coco-cola for enhancing the livelihood of small farmers with there project called Unnati. is usually not enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Mutard

Hi Jo-Jo, I was about to expand on the article for Bruce Mutard, but I guess there is no point now. Jasonyoung.denmark —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jasonyoung.denmark: Well, I guess I could move the current text to a draft so that you can work on it, but you'll have to address the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Mutard before it can be pushed live again. And it's not a given that that will be possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Emerus: Thanks Jo-Jo for creating this section on your talk page. Yes, another misplaced query! I am not a pro at this! I have now read WP:N for the first time and fully understand the reason for deletion. I intended on keeping the article active based on his work in starting the first Australian Comic Arts Festival and being the first person that I am aware to have completed original research in Australia at a Masters level into how the text and the images of a graphic novel operate together. He is also known in the field for his support of Australian indie graphic novelists, whether through publishing, promotion, education, training, etc. But, based on WP:N, I can't see any chance of him being considered notable outside of his own field, unless there were any industry awards, etc. that would meet the level of notable status that Shaun Tan enjoys. Jasonyoung.denmark 12:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

bulk tool to move files to Commons?

Hi - I'm here at Wikiconference NA and we had a question yesterday during a session about using Commons that nobody could answer, and I thought maybe you could.

An editor wanted to know about moving a bunch of PDF files from Wikisource to Commons while preserving the metadata. Obviously there's Commons Helper and Magog's tool, but they can only do one file at a time. Is there a tool that can move files in bulk? Katie^talk 14:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie I am not aware of any mass move tool, probably because Commons prefers each file to be assessed for copyright and usefulness before moving. Maybe commons:Commons:Batch uploading is a place to look at? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll run that by him. Thanks! You're a star! :-) Katie^talk 20:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump Force One

G'day from Oz; I am not sure if this is a real issue or not - anyway, you have deleted Trump Force One as a redirect to Trump Air following the AfD for that article. However, Trump Force One wasn't always a redirect to that article and it wasn't always a redirect; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Force One. I am not sure if the earlier article's previous existence and the AfD outcome is a reason to undelete the redirect with its editing history, but I thought it might be; I will leave the decision as to what to do up to you. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @YSSYguy:. Seems like the redirect was originally to List of things named after Donald Trump (as an aside, the existence of that article bemuses me a little) and was then changed to point to Trump Air by @LittleWink:, so when I deleted Trump Air, the redirect was deleted as well under WP:CSD#G8. Seems like the list has content from the previous Trump Force One article and probably needs its history for attribution purposes, so I'll undelete the redirect and repoint it to the list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reason for deleting Binfire

Hello, Please let me know why did you delete Binfire's Wikipedia page. Binfire has been in Wikipedia since 2009. We are a project management software company with users all over the world. Many universities use Binfire to teach project management to their student.

Looking for your reply.

David R Robins (Dr.Robins)) Oct 9,2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.robins (talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Dr.robins. The folks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binfire decided that we have not enough reliable (press releases and PR usually aren't) in-depth information on the company to have an article on them. Being used all over the world does not always mean that such information exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)