User talk:Joe Decker

Please leave new sections at the bottom of the page, not the top. Pressing "New section" will do the right thing. Thank you.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Review of Dr. Ali Rezai draft profile foto meet notability standards.

Hi Joe: I'm checking back on your review of the draft Dr. Ali Rezai profile I have edited to meet notability standards (added mutliple news sources per request). It's been sitting since late Jun and I'd welcome your re-review please. Thank you.

Hello, Joe Decker. 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded, sorry that took the form of multiple short emails. --joe decker ^talk 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamel

Please Joe accept my thanks concerning the edition of Christian Hamel. P.-F. Puech

You are most welcome! --joe decker ^talk 17:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03:14:36, 17 October 2017 review of submission by Halfpackpad

Halfpackpad (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Z com Securities (Thailand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing the page. I have updated it with a little more background info (I don't want to do much as per the COI guidelines) and added more references.

Hi, @Halfpackpad:, sorry it's taken me a day or two to get back. I know that our guidelines can be pretty complicated and poorly explained, I'll do my best to give you a better explanation of what they need. For companies in particular, what we require from sources in order to demonstrate "notability" can be tougher.

More or less we need two or more sources, but each of those two must meet a whole bunch of other specific tests.

The first is that really we need the company to have been discussed in-depth in multiple sources that have a formal editorial process. Generally this is going to be newspapers and magazines. Government listings of companies can be used to verify information, but aren't selective enough to demonstrate notability themselves.
For companies, we go a bit further, because many periodicals (business journals in particular are notorious for this) will publish articles which are based only on press releases, we exclude sources that talk about the company in the context of routine corporate events. WP:CORPDEPTH is the formal policy section on this, but generally announcements of funding, management changes, and even some product announcements are excluded. Instead, pieces where a journalist actually went and tried to learn something about the company and then write about it.
The sources have to talk about the company in-depth, at least a couple paragraphs of solid information are probably a good handwave for what the "minimum" is here.

I'm not going to decline the article, I'll let another reviewer chime in (often different reviewers find different ways to explain a subject or spot different ways to proceed, this is a case where more hands is better, not worse). But I do think that it will likely be declined in its current state, and that additional sources of the type described above would be necessary to change that.

You may also want to talk to the folks at the Teahouse, they're very good at helping new editors here find their way around our maze-like policies. Best of luck! --joe decker ^talk 01:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Joe Decker. 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.Writaliano (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, you recently deleted my article submission (AmoLatina). Consequently, I just send you an email seeking clarification. Hope you respond at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Writaliano (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That article was deleted a bit over three years ago. You can see the discussion as to why it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmoLatina, however that discussion is hard to interpret without familiarity with not only our policies but the abbreviated way we often discuss them.

The editors who took part in that discussion felt that the web site had failed to demonstrate that the subject met our General notability guideline, which you can read at WP:GNG. This more or less requires the article to be written from reliable, editorially-sound sources completely independent of the topic, which discuss the topic in detail.

My own role in the process, again in September 2004, was simply to determine that a consensus of other editors had come to that conclusion, and to carry out the decision.

If you'd like to have an article on the subject, the best way to proceed is to find two sources that meet the requirements of the GNG. You may wish to ask for assistance at the Wikipedia Teahouse WP:Teahouse, they are an excellent resource for newer editors trying to find their way around our confusing maze of policies and guidelines. Best of luck. --joe decker ^talk 01:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's null bot 8 Stalling or slow?

Hi, I noticed that the files appearing in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old are appearing a lot more than 7 days later - My bot does the revision deletes of the category (Special:Contributions/RonBot) - I looked at the files just processed earlier today (e.g. the last 3 done at 14:40, 17 October 2017 were File:Zuleika-1957.jpg, File:ZZTopExpectNoQuarterTour.jpg, File:Дикое поле (Wild Field)) film poster.jpg) and I see 14 to 16 days elapsed, we are currently tagging about 1000 files a day - is that too many for the bot? As the bot makes "no" edits, it not possible for anyone to know if it's healthy or not - I know DatBot6 was down a couple of days and then caught up in one fell swoop - that might have had an effect. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and check tomorrow, I've been getting random drabs of login errors from the 'bot when it's run on Labs, and it's not clear what's going on there. This started when the "send emails on bad login attempts" began. I'm away from home until tomorrow, otherwise I'd look tonight. :) --joe decker ^talk 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick peek, apparently (from the logged error messages at least) the server database we run on was locked after a database failure, more or less shutting off bots while the database was replicated. 1000/day is generally more than doable. --joe decker ^talk 01:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Z com Securities

Hi Joe, many thanks for all the great guidance that you provided. Yes I'm really new to this and the guidelines are a little confusing and difficult to find the right ones! So your help has been greatly appreciated. I'll take your advice and checkout the treehouse too.