User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus

Deletion of BuildZoom

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'd like to better understand your rationale for the deletion of the BuildZoom page, which complied with the editorial guidelines. Every piece of information, cited a legitimate third-party reference and the article was completely void of any subjective evaluation of whether the service is actually good or not; it simply stated how the system allegedly works. I think there really needs to be a higher standard when it comes to deletion of articles like this that numerous people have contributed to. This is supposed to be an egalitarian system, but it honestly feels autocratic in nature when an individual can just delete something with impunity that many people have contributed to. I'd ask that you cite specific examples of how the article violated the editorial framework instead of just making a blanket evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftreality (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Driftreality: I think you are misunderstanding how deletion processes work here; with the exception of "speedy deletion" deletions only happen when a discussion has established the need for doing so, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuildZoom did for BuildZoom. The article was apparently poorly written and the sources not of adequate quality so the inclusion criteria were not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I appreciate your response but when you make statements like 'apparently poorly written,' and state that references, which included publications like MarketWatch are 'not of adequate quality,' it doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in the methodology associated with the deletion process. I'd submit the article should be reinstated and modified; not just deleted outright. I can't quantify it but it feels as though the community is becoming increasingly trigger happy; I understand that vigilance is needed to avoid excessive advertising, promotion, etc. but I honestly couldn't find one subjective evaluation in the article itself. Driftreality (talk 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Should have responded here earlier, I think: There is an increasing tendency for people to use Wikipedia for promotion and that probably makes users increasingly trigger happy at removing anything that looks like spam. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Rabiul Alam Biplob

	Rabiul_Alam_Biplob
	This article delete. I have find 3 or more RS is cited. Please review this article and restore again http://www.ittefaq.com.bd/print-edition/bogra-edition/2017/09/09/221271.html http://eajkalerkhobor.com/share.php?q=2017%252F11%252F13%252F5%252Fdetails%252F5_r5_c2.jpg&d=2017%252F11%252F13%252F http://www.1kcloud.com/edlv_kXQpI/#11 Rabiul Biplob (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rabiul Piplob: It is a really bad idea to write an article about yourself, in most cases. For the record, I can't read the sources in the non-Latin alphabet (is it Devanagari?) and the Latin scripted text does not mention the article topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)

Hi. Is it possible to restore the article Dale Mitchell (ice hockey) so I can work on it?
Regards JonasJepsen (talk), 18:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @JonasJepsen: Typically I like to see the issues that led to the article's deletion addressed before actually undeleting something, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Mitchell (ice hockey) (3rd nomination) had a consensus to remove due to the general notability guideline and the ice hockey player notability guideline not being met. Has this changed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As soon as I get the article back, I will edit the article in Word so it follows the guideline. For sure.
JonasJepsen (talk), 18:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, that is not how it works. Notability is not contingent on the content of the article; even if I recreate the article that does not mean that it suddenly becomes notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check the German and English translations of the 1257 Volcanic Eruption for Consistency and Juxtaposition.

Please check the German and English translations of the 1257 Volcanic Eruption for Consistency and Juxtaposition.172.76.124.97 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that I can bring up the interest to check the German translation as well. Maybe tomorrow... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Biased wikipedia

You are in the news for bias. This is shameful, Despacito is more important than a researcher with such a good curriculum--2A02:C7F:5025:3D00:F9B9:9DAA:42B3:7F47 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Again with Günter Bechly. This has been discussed a couple of times on this talk page already, we do not have a policy that "has a number of species named after them" is a substitute for significant mentions in reliable sources independent from the subject. The best you can say is that the attention Mr Bechly got from his coming out did attract attention to his article and people noticed that it didn't meet inclusion guidelines. And if people don't understand the difference between closing a deletion discussion (where you need to assess the opinions of others) and participating in it (where you need to opine on the notability of the topic) then they need to learn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe people can make a claim that "has a lot of species named after them" means that the topic is notable. I think @DGG: wanted to examine this point, I do think it has some merit but didn't see evidence it is supported by guidelines or precedent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The real problem is that Bechly discovered or named a number of species himself (his argument says 160 of them, plus several genera and one family. There's evidence that his family is acceptedby other workers in the field). I do not think we have ever deleted an article on anyone who has discovered even one new species. I ask those in favor of deletion to find another such instance in WP. A subsidiary point is that scientists naming species in honor of another scientist is a recopgnition of him as an authority in the field. (It is true that naming a species after someone forsome other reason can be another matter entirely--species have been named for relatives or other miscellaneous people).

See the article on him in the de WP de:Günter Bechly -- he wrote this himself also, but I think it's objective, and the original enWP version is a close translation of that. I have almost never seen an article here on a German academic or other professional with a corresponding unchallenged article in the German Wikipedia being deleted here--they have high standards or BLPs than we do.

The arguments based on low citation count did not take account of his field--paleontologists and other descriptive scientists normally do have low citation counts as compared to experimental scientists. This was mentioned at the afd and not refuted.

The article was in large part deleted because of the tactics used to write it and support it. People who write or largely contribute to their own biographies tend to encounter difficulties--it is normal for us to resent this to the extent of looking for reasons to delete the article. Articles at AfD that are defended by single purpose accounts tend to have exactly the same problem. I in particular invite my good wikifriend David Eppstein to take another look--it is the first time I have ever disagreed with him to this extent on the bio of a scientist. David, you were right to be outraged by the tactics used here, but it shouldn't affect the article.

FWIW, There have been prior instances of editors trying and sometimes succeeding in deleting articles on scientists who have at some point expressed creationist or anti-global warming or other fringe views,. but the people I remember from these discussions were not present at this one. As for me, I think it's important to keep them==there is no better way to demonstrate our fairness.

I notice the Haaretz reporter was of the opinion that "These [Intelligent Design] activities prompted some Wikipedia editors to question Bechly’s scientific bona fides, and in turn the value of his biographical entry as a scientist in the encyclopedia." and "If Bechly’s article was originally introduced due to his scientific work, it was deleted due to his having become a poster child for the creationist movement."[1]

They apparently see our deletion as an expression of bias, and think the bias praiseworthy. read more: https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/1.823247" DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Haaretz columnist has a clearer grasp on our procedures than the ICR people but that aspect of the column was annoying. Despite my delete opinion I don't feel very strongly about Bechly's inclusion (and could easily have written it as weak delete rather than delete); both the scientific contributions and the creationist press are borderline, but one could easily and in good faith argue that either was on the inclusion side of the border rather than the deletion side. The ICR people's tactics don't particularly motivate me to revisit the issue, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Consortium of Christian Study Centers - merger

Hello. As principal author of the erstwhile Wikipedia article 'Consortium of Christian Study Centers' -- now merged with the article 'Christian Study Centers (United States)' -- I'm wondering to whom I would make a case for restoring the original article. I do take the point that it overlapped with the article into which it is now merged. I do, however, have a great deal of additional material I could offer on the Consortium specifically. As to the objection that Christian Study Centers warrant an article but the Consortium does not, the logic in play would seem to require the merger of any article on a trade association -- e.g., 'Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry' -- into an article on the trade itself -- e.g., 'Pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom'. Doctor Mellifluus (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that one article was treated in a certain way does not mean other similar articles must be treated the same. I shall see what the opinions of @DGG, StarryGrandma, and Peterkingiron: are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I voted to merge, be3cause the Christian Study Centres are a wholly US phenomenon, so that the consortium article was covering exactly the same ground as the Centers article. The other case cited by Doctor Mellifluus is completely different. The trade body and the industry are not essentially the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

More notes to self

Apparently 1/4 of all readers of Lake Ptolemy found the topic interesting enough to click at one more link on the page. 1/5 for Lake Corcoran. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-47

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 you use the Chrome web browser on Android you can see a download icon on the mobile website. You can download a formatted PDF. It will work in other mobile browsers in the future. [2]
• The abuse filter now has a function called get_matches. You can use it to store matches from regular expressions – one of each capturing group. You can read more in Phabricator.

Problems

• Last week's MediaWiki version didn't come to all Wikipedias because of a database crash. It will be on all wikis on 20 November. [3][4][5]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 21 November at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Language converter syntax will no longer work inside external links. Wikitext like http://-{zh-cn:foo.com; zh-hk:bar.com; zh-tw:baz.com}- must be replaced. You will have to write -{zh-cn: http://foo.com ; zh-hk: http://bar.com ; zh-tw:http://baz.com }- instead. This only affects languages with Language Converter enabled. Examples of such languages are Chinese and Serbian. This will happen next week. [6][7]

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

19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Infinite Computer Solutions

I would like to understand the reason behind the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Computer_Solutions page. I had done a few edits on the page when it was triggered earlier for promotional content, i helped clean up the article to comply with Wiki guidelines. With regard to the history of the recreation, i see that there were many issues with the article. However, the recent version of the article had every piece of information, cited a legitimate third-party reference. As an editor, it would have been of value to have helped further improve the article than just deleting it and SALT! This appears more like a blanket evaluation. Can you restore it and keep it open for improvement? I would suggest the article is reinstated and modified; not just deleted outright Dhiraj1984 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)