User talk:Mojo Hand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page - please feel free to leave me a message. Unless you request otherwise, I will usually reply here to keep the conversation together. Please let me know here if you send me an email, as I don't check it all that often otherwise.

Remember to add new messages to the bottom of the page and sign with ~~~~.


Note to administrators: If you have come here to discuss an administrative action that I have taken, and if I'm not currently active, I trust you to use your best judgment. Just leave me a note telling me what you have done and why.


January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Faryar Shirzad may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Faryar Shirzad''' (in {{lang-fa|فریار شیرزاد}}); born 1965 in [[London]])<ref name="FT">{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/90b7727c-7bfd-11da-ab8e-0000779e2340.html|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page "UrgentRx"[edit]

I am looking to create a page for the company "UrgentRx" and noticed their previous page had been deleted by you. Reasons for deletion seemed to be concerns over legitimacy. The company and products are indeed legitimate, sold nationwide, and have been mentioned in The New York Times [1], Consumer Reports [2], The Wall Street Journal [3], CNBC [4], among many others. Can you please look into this so we can work together on getting this page back up? Thank you. SGuberud (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)SGuberud

Hello SGuberud. The page was deleted based on the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrgentRx. Do you think circumstances have changed since that discussion?--Mojo Hand (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
After reviewing the discussion, I don't believe there was enough reason to delete the page to begin with. Within just the last few days, the former CEO of Emergen-C has also joined the Board of Directors at UrgentRx [5]. The company, and the backing it has received, is without question deserving of a page. Thanks. SGuberud (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)SGuberud
Given the limited history of your account, may I ask if you have any personal affiliation with the company. It's OK if you do, though Wikipedia has a guideline on conflicts of interest. You can contact me by email if you prefer.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. How do I email you? SGuberud (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)SGuberud

There should be an "email this user" link in the "Tools" bar to the left.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I just had to verify my email address. I sent you an email. SGuberud (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)SGuberud

Did you receive my email? SGuberud (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)SGuberud

Got it; I'll respond shortly.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made some edits to this page, adding references and credibility. I believe the page is now certainly deserving of being moved into the public space. Can you please start the review process at your earliest convenience? Thanks SGuberud (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)SGuberud

Replied at User talk:SGuberud/sandbox.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

Could I get an updated assessment of the WINC (AM) article? It's part of WP:VIRGINIA, as it is a Virginia radio station. Hope all is well with you. :) Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 23:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help. Things are good here, and I hope they are for you as well :) --Mojo Hand (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Yeah, things are going well here, getting some good work done. I'm trying to get each and every radio station article updated and sourced, at least in Virginia and West Virginia (maybe Maryland too). So far I have one GA, one C class, one B class (the one you just did) and one under GA review now (hoping to have that promoted later today). So far, so good. :) It's a long process, so keep an eye out for more assessments down the road. :) Thanks and Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 05:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
That's great. I've been spending some time trying to update and get a handle on the the articles covered by WPVA, so I am happy to help with assessments or feedback on any of those.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed alot of the radio station articles getting updated assessments, which is awesome. I got another if you feel like reading about another radio station. :) It's at the top of the Assessment Page. Thanks in advance. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Noble Guest Family, and the Child[edit]

Hello. Can you please tell me what I need to do to get my name on the list? Thanks. ~~~~

Well, Wikipedia strongly discourages you from adding information about yourself - see WP:COI. I think you would do better to edit unrelated subjects that interest you. Let me know if I can help.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I will try to be more famous, then. ~~~~

Thanks![edit]

Thank you for the edit on Gianni Nunnari. Long story short, the article was started by someone whom I believe is a representative for Nunnari, as the page was exceptionally promotional/puffy in tone. I managed to save it from deletion, but as I edited it I noticed that there was a lot of bad press for him in various outlets, which wasn't in the original article contents. I've been expecting some vandalism on the page and I'm expecting even more over time, so if you could keep an eye on the article I'd appreciate it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll keep an eye on it.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Another Article Assessment Request[edit]

Hey MH, got another article for assessment. This one doesn't fall under WP:VIRGINIA, but if you could help, I'd appreciate it. The article in question is KRSA. It falls under WP:ALASKA and WP:WPRS. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey NH. I generally avoid doing assessments on other Wikiprojects, as I find they can have different criteria or standards. I think this article meets the "C" criteria, but I could see where other editors might disagree.--Mojo Hand (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I figured it was probably a "C", but I wanted to make sure. I can assess through WP:WPRS (I'm a member over there), but you are better at assessments than I am, hence why I was asking. :) Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Xanadu Range[edit]

Dear admin; this page was deleted from Wikipedia resulting in local anger in the City of Kimberley BC. This page was created to recognize the mountain range north and adjacent to Kimberley, to encourage outdoor recreation in the area. We have contacted the BC Ministry of Natural Resources to try and legally create this area for outdoor ed, but due to the administration costs and recent Provincial budget cuts there were unable to process our request. Please re-activate this page. Our goal is to have this mountain range be added onto Google Earth for better orienteering in the region. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckBuchan (talkcontribs) 01:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that the city of Kimberley is upset. My job is to enact the consensus of the Wikipedia community, and the consensus in this case was clear.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Coro (sport)[edit]

I am the creator of this article. I understand your reasoning for deleting this article, but I do request a copy of the deleted article.Hacker44 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)S. Perl

You've got mail.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted page[edit]

Hi, I am creating a page deleted by you last month. 04:14, 10 January 2014 Mojo Hand (talk | contribs) deleted page FuelCell Energy (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FuelCell Energy). The reason of deletion is that the page lacks notability. I have tried to improve the page and collect more information to prove the notability. Thank you for your advice and help. Pls review the page and give me some suggestions to improve it. I will really appreciate that! Best RegardsHelen1023 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is improved from the version that was deleted, and more referencing certainly helps. What would help the article is more sourcing - demonstrated coverage in a reliable third party source (i.e. something more than a company blurb). I hope that helps.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Deletion of CardsApp page[edit]

Hi, this is the original creator of CardsApp page (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:D5Mk-i60aHIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CardsApp+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=il) which was deleted apparently some time ago over issues of notability. I wanted to contact you about the possibility of a reconsideration of your decision. The reason for only few hits on Google News is because most of cardsapp users and merchants are from the eastern world (mostly China, Vietnam and Malaysia). CardsApp is very notable in China, with more than 1 million users. In addition, cardsapp is cooperating with the biggest loyalty consumers club in Israel, which holds more than 100,000 users that use their loyalty benefits via cardsapp. "Hoger" loyalty card CardsApp is now entering the western world and that's why I thought users may look for it in Wikepdia and find relevant information about it. colloquy PRWEB

They also hold extremely active social network pages, for exmample: facebook CardsApp facebook page, twitter and google+ Thank you. Lornesr12 (talk) 12:30, 2 Marc 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lornesr12. The discussion that resulted in the deletion of the article ended just three days ago, so it's unlikely anything has changed in that time. I recommend taking a look at Wikipedia's notability guideline and seeing if new sources about the app develop.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You warned a new user[edit]

User_talk:Drfrankcaldwell. If this account continues to edit this way, what would be the next step, WP:AIV? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the account has been blocked indefinitely, so the immediate problem has been addressed. For future reference, there is a good breakdown on how to respond to vandalism at WP:R Van. As a general rule, if account continues to vandalize after a fourth level warning, then it's appropriate to report them at WP:AIV. I hope that helps.--Mojo Hand (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It does, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 March 2014[edit]

Nimit Fisty (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nimit Fisty. Please specify what protected page you want to edit and why.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 22:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you marked the articles as "keep", but vote shows the result: 5 for delete/redirect/merge (users: Subtropical-man, Joy, Eleassar, Adam Cuerden, Stepojevac) vs 4 for keep (Lugnuts as author, Cirt, Sportfan5000, Stalwart111). So, option of "delete/redirect/merge" win. Of course, I understand - we need for a greater difference in votes than one, but this can not be determined as "The result was keep". This is a complete mistake. The correct description is "no consensus". Please, correct it here and other templates inserted by you, here: [1], [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
15:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Subtropical-man, and thank you for your comments. AfD is a discussion; it's not about winning and it's not about voting. I believe my closure closely reflected the consensus of the discussion. Logging it as a "keep" closure is a bit simplistic, but there is really no practical difference between logging it as "keep" or "no consensus". To get the accurate understanding of the discussion, you have to read it and the full closing. The closing doesn't preclude further discussions about the direction of the articles, in fact it encourages such discussions.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I know, AfD mainly is a discussion, not clean voting but if there is no consensus, votes are important. I have read the whole discussion, there is no consensus. You wrote "but there is really no practical difference between logging it as "keep" or "no consensus"" - wrong, it is not the same. Term of "keep" means consensus for keep article. These articles were not removed because there is not consensus, not because there is consensus for keep. Your designations are misleading. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
19:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Explain to me what you think the practical difference is? Either way, the articles are kept pending some further editorial consensus.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This changes the state of affairs. One example of why this is important: some user read article of LGBT history in Malta. This article is only one sentence, pseudo-stub. User will want to remove the article but article has been incorrectly marked as "This page was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2014. The result of the discussion was keep". If there was a consensus for keep, does not make sense to discuss again because consensus is consensus. But, there is not consensus, page was wrongly marked. If page was marked as "This page was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2014. The result of the discussion was no consensus", user sees chance for further discussion. Pages was wrongly marked. Your designations are misleading. PS. you wrote: "really no practical difference between logging it as "keep" or "no consensus"", other example: really no practical difference between murder, suicide, capital punishment - everything is death but in many cases it is important cause of death and murder, suicide, capital punishment is not the same thing, although it leads to the same death. You can not change that (if you have a bad mood) X person has been murdered or (if you have a good mood) X person has committed suicide, although in practice, the result is the same, only one sentence is true, . I'm sorry, but I had to explain it on the example. Consensus for keep and no consensus, although in practice the result is the same, they are two different things. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
22:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It does not change the state of affairs. Either way, the articles are kept and editors are free to continue further discussion (as the closing explicitly suggests). Your arguments are inapt and pedantic, and your tone is unhelpful.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
If there was no consensus for keep - why enter wrong information? No consensus is no consensus, simply. Maybe for you, no consensus = consensus for keep, for others - not. A similar effect, but these are two different things. Marking pages as "no consensus" is widely practiced between other administrators. Please correct your false descriptions. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my closing. In addition, I am trying to make allowances for the fact that English is not your second language, but your comments are rude and insulting.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not intend to offend anyone.
  1. Please give specific quotes with "rude and insulting".
  2. I still do not understand, there is not consensus for keep. Why you inserted the wrong information? I clearly explained with examples, no consensus is not consensus for keep, even if it similar effect, but these are two different things. You made a mistake, it happens, but please fix it. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)
    18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────1. For example, when you say things like, "the rest is a lie or a mistake" or "false descriptions", these are words that suggest deliberate deception. However, I accept that this is a language barrier issue, and I will assume good faith.

2. Nobody (except you) wanted to delete the articles. Everyone else wanted to keep the pages in some form - either as they are, or via merge or via redirect. So, the broad categories as delete or keep/redirect/merge, with a rough consensus to keep (until and unless a new consensus emerges to take a different action). Closing the AfD as "no conensus" would be OK, but I still think my full closing was more accurate and precise. I understand your arguments to the contrary, but I don't agree with them.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What? "keep/redirect/merge"? Nonsense. "Keep" means leaving the article; "redirect" means the removal content of the article (title exist only as link); "merge" is also means the removal of the article (move contents to other articles). There is no such option as "keep/redirect/merge". Most of AfD pages show clearly: remove/redirect/merge are three options about delete of article. PS. I voted for "Remove all or redirects", redirect differs by only one thing, title existed as link/redirection. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
21:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we will have to agree to disagree.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOT#DEm? I know this from years. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
15:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT history in... showing clearly: no consensus, half of the users argued and voted for "redirect", second half of the users argued and voted for "keep" and also one for "merge" and one for "remove". This is totally no consensus, there is no even the appearance of consensus. Description by you, Mojo Hand say: "The result was keep", this is either a mistake or a deliberate action. I assume the good will. You made a mistake (probably), it happens, but please fix it. Officially please: improve the erroneous designations. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
15:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
My exact words were "The result was keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete these articles. Further discussion about whether the articles should be kept in their present form, redirected or merged can continue in the appropriate forum(s).Mojo Hand (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)". I stand by that closing. If you want to keep talking about this, please do it elsewhere.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support[edit]

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. And re your comment at the AfD, I would never abuse the tools! Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:VIRGINIA Assessment Request[edit]

Hey Mojo, if you have a couple minutes could you assess Centennial Broadcasting for me? Thanks in advance. - NeutralhomerTalk • 15:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely - glad to help.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

George Tucker[edit]

I appreciate your remarks about the article and glad you enjoyed it. This guy was a character, wasn't he? I enjoyed writing about him - he was an ancestor. I have been envolved in GA nominations - Lincoln most memorably - and it's just more of a commitment than I can keep, at least as a primary nominator. Of course I am glad to assist if there is a nomination of an article I have worked on. Thanks again. Hoppyh (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Westminster School[edit]

Hey Mojo! I notice that you approved the Virginia Association of Independent Schools (VAIS) wikipage, and was hoping you could also review the Westminster School page that was linked to that article. I am not sure what the process is to getting pages approved for the public (I am really new to wikipedia!) and any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!! ClaireG2014 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).