This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user.

User talk:Jbhunley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User page   Talk page   Dashboard   Scratchpad   Templates   Sandbox    
Talk page   Nice things people have left me   Sanctions I am aware of
Please place any GS or DS notices on this page
   

There is a User:JBH that made 25 edits back in 2005. I have no relation to that user.

Click HERE to start a new section below.

Contents

Glebos Tkachenko[edit]

I think the Article I am working wright now Is very nice, It's about young artists, I preform dozens of independent references to proof the information I have researched, I can not see any reasonable reason to delete it. I still working on it, So I would really appreciate if I have some more time to develop the article. //redacted a bunch of references I can see in article in question JbhTalk // — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusavitskiy (talkcontribs) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dusavitskiy: I would suggest, very strongly, that if you wish to create an article on this subject that you make use of the Articles for Creation process and draft the article in DRAFT space. That way it will not be subject to deletion before you have been able to get it to a level which is acceptable for Main space. Right now the article is not significantly different to the version which an AfD discussion decided was not appropriate for main space. If you would like me to move the article to DRAFT:Glebos Tkachenko please leave me a note here and I will do so for you. JbhTalk 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this time I could provide more information and references, so If you can move the article to the DRAFT space that would be quite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusavitskiy (talkcontribs) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dusavitskiy: There is not a current article to move, however you can click this link --> DRAFT:Glebos Tkachenko and it will take you to a blank article in draft space. Place {{subst:AFC draft|Dusavitskiy}} at the top of the document and save it to create a draft.

Please make sure to review Reliable sources, General notability guidelines and Notability criteria for artists. Also, it was mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glebos Tkachenko that this looked like an autobiography. Please read the guidelines for conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you have any questions please let me know. JbhTalk 18:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Art Supawatt Purdy[edit]

I'm trying understand the process now I know I started wrong with Art Supawatt Purdy article and should have started with the article of creation. But could you please help me to understand more about these articles (and hundreds more) and how they are not deleted? Are they paid articles? or are there something under the table I dont know about? Otherwise, it seems like a double standard to me, and wrong for the people who comes to Wikipedia for information: Worarat Suwannarat
Sririta Jensen
Mai Charoenpura
Wannarot Sonthichai

Thank you so muchGreekadoniz (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is written and curated by volunteers there are often inconsistencies in articles. We call arguments based on that WP:OTHERSTUFF ie other stuff exists but just because one or many non-policy compliant articles exist does not mean another should. If you feel the article you mentioned do not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines then nominate them for WP:AFD. That is how the system works - sometimes bad articles get through, if someone notices them they try to fix them, nominate them for deletion or, as is often the case, if they are uninterested they ignore them. -- No conspiracy, no underhanded dealings, just lots of people working randomly on a site with 5,000,000+ articles and hundreds of new ones per day of which many are written by people who do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There are about 3000 highly active, long term experienced editors here to write content, manage the internal editorial processes, review new articles, fix old articles and help new editors hopefully become long term editors. Some stuff just slips through. JbhTalk 05:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
So you didnt read them or check the history, because you did you would learn that they have been nominated for deletion and they;re still there. I want to learn, not to cause problem for other people or being baby by saying why they can and I cant. I ask you because I htought there is a simple explaination that I dont know.
Tokyogirl was saying about the article I used in my reference that she cant comment unless she sees the article. I understadn that you would have to be the one to undelete my article after seeing better reference so Where can I send the scanned pages to please?Greekadoniz (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not an admin and can not undelete however the article was only redirected so the text is available in the history. Someone has already copied the text to DRAFT:Art Supawatt Purdy for you. You should work to improve the article in Draft space and then use the Submit your draft for review button to get an AFC reviewer to look at the article. If a lot of the sources are in Thai you should ask at WP:WikiProject Thailand for a Thai speaker to review it. (@Kudpung: Do you speak Thai and do you know anything about this actor?)

Also, I looked at the articles the ones which went to AfD were closed as No Consensus becuase no one !voted. The one which was deleted CSD#A7 was not the same version (I assume) because A7 means that the article made no claim of significance, for example it may have just said '... is an actor.' I suspect the reason they have not been nominated again is no one wants to for a WP:BEFORE because they do not to speak Thai and do not want to search for sources. If you know enough about the Thai film industry to know they are not notable and think they should be deleted I can walk you through how to AfD them. The easiest would be to activate WP:TWINKLE in your Preferences and use its XfD menu item and type a reason like "There is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this article to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR." If you do choose to nominate them please notify me and I will sort them into deletion categories so more people will see the discussion. JbhTalk 12:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on this I think en.Wiki should have an article on Art Supawatt Purdy. This was one example where nominated in good faith, an AfD failed miserably due to lack of knowledgeable participation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I had looked at a GTranslate version of the Thai page but, while there was a lot of information about him I could not see any RS to back it up. Everything seems to be really brief mentions of him in the movie and it does not seem he has a big role in Soi Cowboy, at least not from what I can find (From what I can glean he likely just sang the theme song). Do you know if the TV shows and other movies are significant enough, and his roles prominent enough, to get him over WP:NACTOR#1? From the Thai page it looks like he played unnamed roles ie "aid worker", "Runaway" and a lot of odd things like "Mach", "floor", "the screen" which must be machine translation errors. Or maybe one of his songs made a national chart? (I do not even know where to start for Thai music charts - all of the sources provided are press releases) If so I have no objection to bringing the article back as a stub under an SNG but all of the biographical details seem to be coming from places like IMDB and this.

I did a search on the th-wiki's article title ศุภวัฒน์ อ่ำประสิทธิ์ (Which Google back translated as "Supachai Valley gloomy performance" which seems an inauspicious name for an actor :) . My guess is Google does not have Thai to English down yet.) and from this it looks like he may not even have a big following in Thailand if a "fan site" is anything to go by. I found one article from a news site which would not translate [1] and lot of Thai coverage which looks be in relation to Gold 10 but nothing jumped out at me as being more than passing mentions of him.

It is frustrating, the original author really seems to be trying to get a good article together but I can not find and they do not seem to have even a single solid independent RS write up on him. From his site, where I would expect to find chart listings, links to major articles etc, it looks like he is mostly a model [2]. There are dozens of cover shots but not much else. JbhTalk 15:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There are still a few languages that machines will probably never be able to translate, and Thai is one of them. Common first and family names come up with ridiculous equivalents, something in Thai could translate as The tree on the moon favours egg yolk for washing machine bearings. Furthermore, Thai has very little grammar as we know it, no inflection, and no punctuation, so where we rely heavily on tenses, gender, number, and mood, Thai can only be largely understood by context, which leads to enormous problems of communication even between native speakers. Finally, We must be tolerant with articles from and about developing countries where Internet based sources may be scarce. It's really a question of a mild form of IAR. I would not waste too much time and energy on it - we have far more important things to chase such as COI and other paid advocacy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung OK. Thank you for looking into it. Also, fascinating about the Thai language... Cheers. JbhTalk 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
He has a pretty big role in Soi Cowboy if you actually see the film. Not only he recorded 3 songs for the soundtrack, he also appears as himself, the Thai Star that the lead female adores very much. A few clips of him from his mini-series were used in the film to establish that is a star. Clips from Soi Cowboy on Dailymotion showing the lead female watch Art Supawatt on TVClip from Soi Cowboy showing Art sing songs from his album in a private live Performance
I can not find a fan site for him either, but I found his youtube channel. There are serveral clips from Gold 10 or Thong 10 more than 300,000 hits with over 4000 followers. Please check it out here: Art Supawatt Purdy Youtube ChannelGreekadoniz (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
My best advice is still to go through Articles of Creation and WP:WikiProject Thailand. I simply can not in good consiance say I think he meets, or comes close to meeting, Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion - YouTube hits and such simply does not cut it. If you work with WikiProject Thailand you may find editors more familiar with his work who can judge the argument that he has had enough significant roles in enough TV shows to pass WP:NACTOR and they should be able to judge the coverage in the Cover Man source as well - I thought I had seen the Living in Thailand article and it barely mentioned him but I can not find it now so I may be misremembering but AFC can work with you on that.

It is always difficult to show notability for non-Western people and subjects on en.wp because we are inherently biased to English sources but in this case even the article on the Thai WP does not have better citations. Please feel free to contact me if you need other assistance but I am out of ideas as far as this article goes. Cheers. JbhTalk 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have not look at the Living In Thailand im referencing, because my reference has him on the cover with two other actors and there're at least 2 pages combined of his interview inside along with those 2 actors there are 6 pages. I understand you probably dont have a lot of time to devote on my article to really check my reference, but please dont assume the worst and say things like 'it barely mentioned him' I spent many many many hours researching trying to proof that the article im creating is good. I went out to looking in many old magazine shops for magazines, any magazines that talks about him. Its not that hard to find them in Thai, but its super hard to find 2 in English. Im willing to send the article to proove....but you chose to shoot it down and implied that my reference is worthless.
Does someone has to be popular to be notable? BUt you said he must not have big follower because you found a gossip site that was created in 2008, long after he was relevent. So I go and find something current in youtube to show you that if you want popularity, he may have some, considering a total of almost 3 million hits he's got on his clips. I was not using his youtube as a reference, but to show you that your guess and assumptions about him once again is wrong. I dont know if you're being this way is your way of teaching me to dig deeper and to become a better Wikipedia Editor, for that I thank you and I will not give up. As long as I know that in your heart, you know I am on the right path and doing the right thing. THank you again.Greekadoniz (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said above I may have misremembered or been thinking of another source... no need to go off the rails. I have given you my best assessment and told you how you may be able to proceed via AFC and WikiProject Thailand.

Please, if you have not, carefully read, a couple of times, Writing your first article and our basic policies; Verifibility, Notability and the associated General notability guidelines, our policy of what is and is not a reliable source and our policies on biographies of living persons. Once you have done so select three or four solid Independent (Not from a publicist, or a press release but from a third party completely unconnected with the subject) reliable sources (I would suggest that each source have at least 2-3 paragraphs discussing him, if one is a full page or more then you probably can get by with 2 or 3 initial sources). Once you have those write a couple of paragraphs citing each factual claim to one of those sources. If the sources are offline it may be a good idea to use the quote= parameter in the {{cite}} template to include the quote and a translation to help the AFC reviewer, the quotes can be removed before finalizing the article but knowing the text you are working from will help the AFC reviewer a lot. You can then use the less detailed or lower quality sources to flesh out stuff like the discography, TV and filmography tables if you need to but it is those initial few sources you started with that will matter for notability. After you have done that submit the article to AFC.

That is the best advice I can give you, don't pile on lots of little passing mentions or social media comments or links to movie scenes - pick three good sources you can write an article from. If you can not find those initial sources demonstrating "significant coverage" then move on to a different topic because 95% of the time if you can not demonstrate basic notability with 3 sources then it does not matter what you pile on as references, the article will not pass GNG because no amount of passing mentions, minor quotes, blogs or social media can take the place of those initial "significant coverage" sources - that is just how "notability" works at Wikipedia. JbhTalk 19:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, and Thank you for still mentoring me. I hope this make you proud. I found a way to create an external link to the raw scan of the magazine article about him in PDF file. Would you be so kind and please follow the link and see if I can somehow use this as my reliable source? I thank you in advance:
  1. Big Chilli Magazine: Art Cut Loose
  2. Living In Thailand: Man In The Dock]
  3. Gent: Cover Man]
  4. GM Magazine: From The Cover & The Script of his Life]
  5. KhunYing Magazine Ask The Stars: Love Life]
  6. Movie Entertainment Home of the Star- Supawatt Aumprasit]
  7. PuYing Magazine All Star Duo-The New Generation]
Greekadoniz (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. I reformatted things a bit and deleted the hyperlinks because they are "links to copyright violating material" - see WP:COPYVIO. (Personally I consider the links fair use for the purpose of examining them but others may disagree and since I have looked at them there is no more need for the live links. Just do not link to the scans in the article.) I can not assess the Thai language sources and I doubt an AFC reviewer would be able to either so when you cite them in your draft I suggest doing it like this <ref>{{cite news|periodical=(Name of journal)|title=Article title|page=page number|date=date of issue|quote=The Thai text you are basing the statement on // An English translation of the text}}</ref> See {{cite}}. As to the two English sources I think #2 is quite good, it is definitly not the article I thought it was. Source #1 is kind of meh mainly because it does not have a byline and could be a press release. Assuming a couple of the Thai sources are in between #1 and #2 in quality then you have enough to, in my opinion, establish notability and write an article.

If you do the citations and translations as I suggested when you write the draft you can leave me a note here when you are done instead of, or as well as, pressing the Submit your draft button and I will review the article for you. That said, even if I think it is good enough there are no guarantees someone else may not think it is not.

Start by writing something and citing every claim of fact, opinion or quote to one of those seven sources. Do not bother with tables or even different sections, just get three or four paragraphs written based on those sources, with citations and translations then ping me and we can go from there. JbhTalk 21:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. It may take me till next weekend to do this becasue I have to work during the week, but Ill carefully do as you advise me. THank you again for giving a chance from the beginning, and willing to stick with me (and my ignorance) until now. Greekadoniz (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
No rush. I will be on holiday part of this month, you can check the orange banner at the top of this page or my user page if I will not be active for a week or more. Other than that I usually see messages pretty quickly, my day has lots of little bits of free time but not often long stretches of it.

Everyone starts out ignorant of the arcana of Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia does a horrible job of explaining to new editors what is actually involved in writing a good article about a notable subject. I hope that once you get the hang of article creation you will choose to continue at Wikipedia. We need people like you who are willing to track down old sources and write about topics not easily accessible. Cheers. JbhTalk 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right about that new editor is almost like working in the dark. I learned from looking at other articles and studied the differences by examining the differences in codes, syntax and markers. Using trial and error with many many previewing to find what I want. Then, I learn bits by bits from you and your advice each time you suggested something.

To be honest, I went through the extent that I did because I want to prove myself to you and everyone that I am correct. Sometimes your comments are encouraging but sometimes are harsh but I can feel that you meant well. Your harsh comments really worked to challenge me even more to find the way to get my point across when i believe that I am right. Sometimes I almost think you made those comments on purpose to help me, like what my teachers in college used to do to push me. I'd like to continue to be a contributor on Wikipedia for sure, I already know what I want to write next. This time though I will do it the right way. Greekadoniz (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if my comments were over harsh, I tend to be direct but I do try to admit when I am wrong - that and I am an American and no one in the rest of the world ever accused us of having a polite culture even when we are trying not to be obnoxious Face-smile.svg. Looking forward to seeing your article. JbhTalk 14:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

|-

Hello how are you? It's been a long time. I've been so busy at work that I haven't had time to work on this article until tonight.
I didn't press Review yet because I would like to let you know first that Im back working on this. I worked on it exactly (I hope) according to your kind suggestions. I believe I have a good bias straight point article. Would you please check it out? and let me know what to do next? I dont mind spend more time on it, if you find anything I can improve please let me know. I want my first article to be 'a good article.' THank you :) Greekadoniz (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Greekadoniz: Good to hear from you! Draft:Art Supawatt Purdy looks very well done to me. To transfer it into Wikipedia space you can click this link [3] to edit the redirect. Just remove the #REDIRECT line and paste the material from your new draft into the article. That will keep the old editing history intact. If you have any problems doing that just let me know and I will do it. Or if you want to go through the AFC submission process and have someone else look it over you can link them to this thread where we discussed the sources and him passing WP:GNG. Cheers. JbhTalk 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: I did it, THank you, Thank you, Thank you...the article is live on Wikipedia. I'm so glad I didn't give up. Thank you also for being so patient with me. I know there're a lot more to learn still about writing and editing on WP, but I'll take time and master it one day lol. The next article I am hoping to write is about this 86 years old Thai Director who's still very active and still working today making and producing films. He's like an Icon in Thailand, and done so much in his 65 years career but yet he doesn't have an article written about him on WP!. I will write a draft and present to you, if you dont mind reviewing it for me, when you have time. Again Thank you :) Greekadoniz (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
He sounds like an interesting article subject. I would be happy to take a look at the draft. JbhTalk 05:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

@Jbhunley:Hi, how r u? THank you for defending my article for me. As for the picture, 'This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Art_Supawatt_Purdy_GM_Magazine_Thailand_Cover_1999.jpg. I thought I did it right but if you deleted it I probably did something wrong. Can you please advise me how did I go wrong? THank you very much :)Greekadoniz (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I am fine, I hope you are doing well. In regard to the picture you should read WP:Non-free content#Images. In the case of pictures of people it only allows for "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Basicly no non-free pictures of living people are allowed regardless of a fair use claim. It is a pretty esoteric rule and not one you could be expected to know. JbhTalk 00:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC) PS {{ping}} only works when you make a new edit which you sign with four ~'s. In this case it does not matter because whenever a comment is added to an editor's talk page the software automaticly sends a notification/ping.
THank you once again for your guidance. I wanted to put a face to the article because I thought it would make the article more complete. So I did some research on Thai language source to find out out this 'fair use' but nowhere on there did it give such detail and clear explanation as the link you guided me to. Learning everyday, unfortunately in my case, learning from my mistakes! and thank you for the tips about the 'ping' also.
May I ask one more question please. While I was doing research for the 85 yr old dirctor I found some pictures of Art Supawatt among many topic pages of celebs with this sign CC BY-SA, on all of them. After reading up on it, to my understanding, I thought it's a permission to use the pictures and info on the page. So I uploaded one of the picture here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArtofLoveCDCover.jpg and give proper credit the best I know how. Now, its being requested for deletion. WOuld you be so kind and take a minute to look over it and see if that picture is appropriate to be used on wikipedia? Thank you in advance. From now on, with your permission, I think before i addd anything I will ask your advice first. I dont want to do anything wrong and cause you to save my article again. Please dont be sick of my 'thank yous' yet. I just dont know how else to show you my gratitude and how much I really really appreciate you , your time and every one of your advices. Thank you :) Greekadoniz (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm... The first thing you would need to is make sure the people granting the license are the original copyright holders. Usually that would be the photographer who took the picture. Wikipedia is very picky about using images which are not-free because lots of people make copies of Wikipedia to use for different, sometimes commercial, purposes.

For the CD cover JJMC89 noted he found a conflicting license/copyright notice. Also, I do not see anything on the page you linked that gives me confidence that the whoever posted the images was the original copyright holder. In cases of copyright we always err on the side of caution.

Please do feel free to ask me any questions you want and I will answer to the best of my ability or try to point you in the righ direction although sometimes I am not around for several days. Also, some of the editor who watch this page may answer. Also, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a great place to get questions answered. There is also Wikipedia:Editor assistance and {{help me}}. Cheers. JbhTalk 17:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... The first thing you would need to is make sure the people granting the license are the original copyright holders. Usually that would be the photographer who took the picture. Wikipedia is very picky about using images which are not-free because lots of people make copies of Wikipedia to use for different, sometimes commercial, purposes.

For the CD cover JJMC89 noted he found a conflicting license/copyright notice. Also, I do not see anything on the page you linked that gives me confidence that the whoever posted the images was the original copyright holder. In cases of copyright we always err on the side of caution.

Please do feel free to ask me any questions you want and I will answer to the best of my ability or try to point you in the righ direction although sometimes I am not around for several days. Also, some of the editor who watch this page may answer. Also, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a great place to get questions answered. There is also Wikipedia:Editor assistance and {{help me}}. Cheers. JbhTalk 17:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Bateman[edit]

(In response to following:) @Seraphimblade: The picture associated with the article is also a COPYVIO (it says it is from an Abercrombie Fitch ad and is uploaded to Commons as "own work"). Would you please tag it for deletion there or leave a note on my en.wp talk page about how to do speedy deletes on Commons. I do not know the processes there or how to find the file now that the article is deleted. Thank you JbhTalk 12:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

First, if you need to contact me regarding something, please do so on my talk page. Don't comment on closed discussions, whether at AfD or otherwise. As far as flagging for deletion at Commons, it's fairly easy to do—use the "copyvio" template on the image at the top of the page, and then as the first parameter leave a brief explanation as to why you believe it's a copyvio. The explanation should include a link to the image. I didn't find it on Tineye or with a web search myself, so I'm not sure enough that it is a copyvio to put it up for speedy deletion there, but I've filed a deletion request for it since it's highly unlikely Abercrombie licensed an ad photo under a free license. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you. JbhTalk 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

  • 13 July 2016: 7,000
  • 1 August 2016: 9,000
  • 7 August 2016: 10,472
  • 16 August 2016: 11,500
  • 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I do not have a lot of free time but I have spent some time on NPP this morning and will do more during my down time. JbhTalk 14:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability tag on Paul Supramaniam[edit]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I've restored the notability tag on the Paul Supramaniam article as I have not been able to find any sources verifying the Dato-Knight Commander of the Order of Pahang (DIMP) Award. Aust331 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aust331: No problem. Thank you for letting me know. JbhTalk 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jbh, the source you provided fails WP:RS as it's a PDF file that can be easily altered. If you cannot find another source, I'll need to restore the tag. Thanks. Aust331 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Aust331: I am sorry but you are incorrect in your interpratation of RS. The format is irrelevant. Publitas (the hosting site) seems to be the e-publisher of the University's newsletter rather than the file being hosted on something like a personal or non-independent web site. The document itself is an alumni newsletter published by the university and is where one would expect to find such anouncements.

If you feel the award itself does not meet BASIC that is a different mater entirely. JbhTalk 18:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the award itself does not meet BASIC, I'm saying that the source you provided does not meet the criteria for a reliable source. We need something more official as a source. What you provided can be easily forged. Aust331 (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
What I am saying is that the only time we worry about that is when the site is not independent from the user. Whether something is a PDF or not is immaterial. Everything electronic can be forged. This is the type of publication where this type of thing is announced in English language sources. I do not know if there is even an electronic version of the Honors List for Malasia as there is for the U.K. Honors list. If there is it is not in English. If you truly feel the source is inappropriate because it is a PDF and therefore "easily forged" please take that arguement to WP:RSN. My firm belief is that arguement will be soundly rejected. JbhTalk 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Aust331: Based on this [4] the award may not be sufficient to meet ANYBIO. It is the lowest order granted, much like an MBE, I thought it more like KBE. Go ahead and replace the notability tag. JbhTalk 19:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Maria Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frankish (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) 09:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yi Mu (academic)[edit]

How is a Google Scholar profile page not an independent reliable source for the subject's publications? Yi Mu has no control over its content, so it's independent, and it's reliable in that it is compiled by Google Scholar from publications in refereed reliable journals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read reliable sources and WP:BLPPROD which discuss the type of source required to remove a {{blpprod}}. Basicly you need something like a book, newspaper article, magazine article or some such, written by an independent third party or not related to him or his school which talks about him or verifies some material in the article. The source must have a reputation for good editorial control and fact checking and accuracy to be a WP:RS. Google Scholar is not appropriate. It is effectively a social media profile and has no editorial control and can be edited by the scholar.

I am replacing the BLPPROD and linking to this explanation. Please do not remove it again without adding a source which meets the requirements for removal. The article will not be deleted, even at then end of the 7 days, without an administrator reviewing the article and any sources which may have been added. Because of this, until you become more familiar with our sourcing requirements for biographies of living people it is best to just leave to tag on the article rather than to keep removing it without adding an adequate source. If you have questions or need help please feel free to ask me or {{ping}} me from the article talk page. JbhTalk 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

PS If you feel a GScholar profile is a reliable source you may want to bring up the question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where sources are discussed. Please see How to edit your Google Scholar Profile for why it is neither an independent nor a reliable source. JbhTalk 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This [5] will get rid of the BLPPROD. He is the Editor-in-Chief for the International Journal of Applied Cryptography. A better source would be a link to the journal's mast head rather than the publisher's web page. Note though that Inderscience evidently not considered a very good publisher [6]. JbhTalk 20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
I wanted to let you know that your recommendation to look at WP:WHYN, during this notability discussion, has been enormously valuable to me! I think of it on just about a daily basis. Thanks so much for the guidance. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Thank you very much! JbhTalk 20:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC[edit]

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

FRANK WILDER[edit]

Hi there! Re: Frank Wilder -- Please let me know how I can improve the article, relatively new here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshulz109 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jshulz: Hi! I am about to go to sleep so I can not go into specific issues now but I will give you some of my general boilerplate advice:

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on what is appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. For articles the most important thing to be done is establish notability. For this we have out general notability guidelines which in short require significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. There are also various specific notability guidelines which give additional, usually easier to meet, criteria to establish notability. In this case those are the specific notability criteria for any biography and the general notability criteria. If an article subject meets our notability criteria an article can be kept but it is not required to be kept. If the subject does not meet those criteria than there may not be an article on that subject included in Wikipedia. We do not make any judgement about the subject's importance or contribution to society we only judge if there has been enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to allow us to write an informative and neutral article.

You need to show how the subject meets our notability criteria and how that information can be verified by coverage in independent, reliable sources.

What I noticed about your article is that many of the sources do not discuss the person or only mention him in passing while others are not what we consider reliable sources. What you need to do is find 2 or 3 magazine or newspaper articles that have at least a couple of paragraphs dedicated to him, base the article on those and remove the references that do not specificly mention him.

You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. JbhTalk 05:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Re-do ping @Jshulz109: JbhTalk 05:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC - progress[edit]

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/To do[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your participation. Please complete your list of 10 priorities. The sooner all work group members have completed this task, the sooner the WMF will start doing something about it (or so they tell us).--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done JbhTalk 05:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

BSI[edit]

Hello Jbhunley, Thank you very much for your concerns into the BSI article addressed on Oct 2. I will try and make improvements and better follow Wiki expectations. We logan (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstract sensualism[edit]

I got your deletion email. I have a question. Expressionism was developed by Monet. Cubism was done by Picasso. Why can't a new art form be by DeRubeis. We are not marketing him. It is a new term that got registers as an art form and I provided its history and description of how it is made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1780:EED0:F91E:E23:9649:F0EE (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
I want to express my deepest gratitude and thank you for your time, your guidance, your advices, your patience and a chance to prove myself. Your kindness and devotion will produce many quality editors who will fill every single byte of Wikipedia with only good quality articles. You are truly an asset to Wikipedia. I'm glad that you found my article and recommended it for deletion. lol Thanks you again teacher! Greekadoniz (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Greekadoniz: Thank you very much. I am very happy you were able to get your article written. I am glad to have had some small part in helping you succeed. I hope it is the first of many for you. Editors who create and expand articles are our most valuable resource at Wikipedia. I look forward to your next article! JbhTalk 17:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications[edit]

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling the patrollers[edit]

Hi Jbhunley, would you be available to give some thoughts on this tool which has been created in part to "patrol the new page patrollers"? It is not currently complete, but lists the latest 500 page patrols a user has done. Any feedback would be appreciated Face-smile.svg -- samtar talk or stalk 20:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I will give some thought to this and see what I can come up with. Off the top of my head I would like to be able to see the Patrolling actions (tagging, marking) they made on a page, patrol actions by other users on that page as a chronology. For instance did they tag it BLP Sources only to have someone come along and BLPPROD. Also something that shows unreviews of an editor's reviews and who performed them. Being able to look at a timeline of tagging for a page would also help a lot.

I do not know if any of that is possible but anything that helps the person reviewing another's actions to see how things evolved would help. It also may prevent 20/20 hindsight issues.

Thank you for your work! JbhTalk 20:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(stalking) @Samtar: Are curation and deletion tag logs not featured? It's probably what Jbhunley's referring to — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Meghna venkat[edit]

I will take some time to develop this page. She has got many awards and great Bharatnatyam dancer. Give some time. Please don't delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navamoini (talkcontribs) 01:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Navamoini: Welcome to Wikipedia! In order to remove a WP:BLPPROD you need to add a reliable source which supports some claim about the person. A reliable source is something published using strong editorial control, in this case something like a newspaper or magazine with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The sources you added look to be blogs and press announcements which do nor meet this requirement. I would suggest that you find three reliable sources that have at least two or three paragraphs discussing the person. This is needed to pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and if they are not present it is very likely that, even if the BLPPROD is removed, that the article will be considered for deletion at Artcles for Deletion.

I know these requirements can be frustrating but there must be enough coverage by reliable sources to show the person is notable. The sources must meet the requirements of a reliable source because everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. This is even more important when the subject is a living person.

Please feel free to ask me any questions, here or on the article talk page, and I will try my best to help. Please make sure to click through and read the blue links above. They contain much more information. Cheers. JbhTalk 13:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Madhuri Desai article photo deletion[edit]

Hello, I donot understand why the photo got taken down from the new article ' Madhuri Desai'. I didnt do any copyright infringement. Kindly explain to me why the photo in the article got taken down. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiusermumbai (talkcontribs) 16:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wikiusermumbai: The article has been published elsewhere. Unless you took the photo yourself, or have purchased the unencumbered copyright from the owner, and release it under a proper listens it is a copyright violation. If you are the copyright owner email permissions@wikimedia.org and someone will walk you through the process.

If you are a close enough associate of the photo subject to own the copyright of the photo she uses on her Google+ profile then you very likely have a conflict of interest and need to read and follow Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:COI. If you were paid to create the article then you need to read and follow the policy at WP:PAID which, among other things, requires you to disclose, on the article's talk page and on your user page, who is paying you.

(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a date stamp when you save the page.) JbhTalk 16:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new here. Couldn't figure out how to continue the thread. So had to start a new thread. Thank you for the explanation. It was my original photo but you are right to say that it was used in other places by others. If I want to post an original never-used-before picture of the actress, will I be allowed to do so? What rules have to be followed in that case? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiusermumbai (talkcontribs) 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Kindly let me know. Thank you. waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiusermumbai (talkcontribs) 18:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
First you need to clarify your relationship to the article subject. If you are close enough to them to be able to make photos on request you likely have a conflict of interest and need to follow the guidelines outlines in WP:COI or, if you have been paid or otherwise compensated, those in WP:PAID. Second please sign your comments as I mentioned to you before. It is required and repeatedly failing to do so can be considered disruptive. Information that and how to edit talk pages can be found in this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.

For the image, you can upload a photograph that you took yourself, have not published elsewhere and release under an acceptable license which you choose in the upload window. I would strongly suggest that you contact permissions@wikimedia.org to get the copyright permissions sorted before and put the WP:OTRS ticket number with the upload. JbhTalk 19:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ogloba page[edit]

Hi there.

I'm new to this, and really tried to make the page objective, rather than promotional. I guess i failed miserably. Any pointers?

DavidFound (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@DavidFound: The article has been deleted so I can not refer to it to see what the specific problem was. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia Neutral Point of View and then use the Articles for Creation process. This will give you time to work on it before it is subject to deletion for not complying with Wikipedia's content guidelines. An experienced editor will then review it when you are done and either move it into article space or tell you what is wrong. Right now there is a backlog there so it may take a long time to get a review but having an article deleted repeatedly for promotional content is likely to get it WP:SALTed so I really recommend going through the AFC process. JbhTalk 19:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Anjali Bhardwaj speedy deletion notice[edit]

Amritajohri (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Jbhunley You had tagged the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjali_Bhardwaj for speedy deletion citing copyright infringement of http://info.risk.thomsonreuters.com/2016-South-Asia-Risk-Summit-Speaker?elqTrackId=3f97ea98255c45fba3034e76619d1b75&elq=00000000000000000000000000000000&elqaid=7075&elqat=2&elqCampaignId= I have now edited the content to address the issue of copyright. Also, the content for the Wikipedia page and also on the thomasreuters page have in fact been sourced from the bio note of Anjali Bhardwaj. As she was a speaker at the Thomas reuters event, her bio note was put up on their website. However, like I mentioned, I have edited the content just to be sure. Please review the changes and suggest if the page now meets Wikipedia standards. Thank you.

@Amritajohri: Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for cleaning up the article. A good way to see if you have chunks of copied text to to click the view copyvio report link in the CSD notice at the top of the page. It will highlight spans of matching text. Even if nothing matches watch out for WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASEing which can still be a WP:COPYVIO. An admin who is familiar with dealing with copyright will take a look at the article and remove the tag if appropriate. Make sure you keep a copy of the article offline so if they delete it you can ask them to explain what they found wrong. JbhTalk 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I just looked at the article. An admin cleaned up the rest and removed the speedy tag. JbhTalk 13:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Setsiled WP:REFUND[edit]

Hello, you have deleted the page Setsuled which i wrote, where can i find what i had written? i would like a copy of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdaZaurak (talkcontribs) 19:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@AdaZaurak: The deleting admin was Peridon. You can ask them,on their talk page, for a copy of the article per WP:REFUND. Your article was deleted due to lack of a credible assertion of significance. Wikipedia has content guidelines which specify what subjects may have an article. First they must be notable as described in the General notability guidelines. Essentially there must be significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. This means major newspapers, magazines, books, scholarly articles etc not blogs, Facebook, self published material or press releases. A good rule of thumb is at least 2 or three sources with 2 or 3 paragraphs of coverage. Passing mentions and quotes do not count towards notability.

I hope this is some help to you when you attempt to rewrite your article.

(Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail.)

(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)

JbhTalk 20:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: ok, ty

AdaZaurak (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not delete "Dhindsa" page[edit]

Page made for Dhindsa should not be speedily deleted because... -it is a famous family name within India, that many people hold around the world. There are many surnames on wikipedia from Indian heritage, why are those not being deleted? I find it offensive, and I want this page to stay for when people search Dhindsa, they could know about the family name- and people who bear the family name. It was removed two days ago because someone thought it adds no relevancy, but it does within the Indian culture/around the world. I did not take part or know of any consensus for deletion of this page, if I were to know about it, I would definitely not let it happen. Please don't change anything on this page unless you have something valuable to add or edit- maybe to the sources or cutting out some information. Other than that, leave it as it is, it is a perfectly acceptable page to have on Wikipedia as there are many other Indian surnames on this site which have been kept- let alone other ethnic family names. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanfromindia2016 (talkcontribs) 01:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Themanfromindia2016: The article was tagged because an article with the same name was recently deleted at AfD. An admin compared the page and removed the tag because the two articles were different.

(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)

JbhTalk 01:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley Okay so is the page staying or not? If yes then great, thanks! If not, then what needs to be done in order to keep it, because I want the page to be on Wikipedia. • contribs) 01:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Themanfromindia2016: There are no deletion tags on it now and I do not see anything that should result in it being nominated again. I marked it reviewed and it is on my watchlist. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Cheers. JbhTalk 01:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why Adnan Xavier Fakhouri?[edit]

Hi!

Can you please explain why the page " Adnan Xavier Fakhouri" is still tagged for deletion?

Thank You! Hft272727 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hft272727: As near as I can see it is not. It is tagged with {{notability}} and {{npov}}. The notability tag means it may be considered for deletion at WP:AFD in the future if something more than local "hometown interest" type coverage does not turn up though. Also, see WP:BLP1E for information about people notable for only one event. JbhTalk 02:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank You for the response!
It is definitely a good idea to add more reliable sources, thank you for this recommendation.
I made sure to add in other larger sources rather than just "Hometown Life" or "Birmingham Patch" with an article from the Detroit Free Press, which is one of the top read magazines in the US and used by Bloomberg. I also added "Benzinga", a source that has a very broad focus on news and business all around the US.
I also removed the bias that was clearly present. I think someone got a bit carried away writing it at first.
Thank You for the recommendations!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hft272727 (talkcontribs) 02:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Hft272727: It looks like someone just nominated the article for AfD. Since it is already on my watchlist I will go over the sources and do some searches of my own and give my opinion at the AfD. If I do not get to it tonight it will probably be early next week - the AfD will run for at least 7 days. JbhTalk 02:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank You so much!! I highly appreciate that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hft272727 (talkcontribs) 03:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling[edit]

I have tagged User talk:WebCite with the first of three user warnings. I will be out of town for the next few days. The rest of the incremental warning templates are Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Templates#UW reviewer. If you use the third one, let me know. If patrolling persists, good or bad, after a further 6 hours, either start an ANI requesting a short (24 hr), preventative block or find an admin to do it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW: Now that NOINDEX has been restored and applied to all new articles and pages moved to mainspace, until they are finally checked off as 'patrolled', there is now absolutely no excuse for rapid reviewing and we have some breathing space.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. JbhTalk 18:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • May want to take another look at things in this area. As Velella pointed out, now redubbed Streetfog seems to be spamming user talks with NPP templates seemingly without regard to the articles themselves. I'm finding myself unconvinced that this user is any type of asset in this area without substantial additional editing experience. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood:They have not patrolled anything since they were warned by Kudpung [7] so hopefully they have internalized the message. Everyone screws up now and again, more so at the beginning, but they have had many opportunities to learn and show no appearance of having done so. I agree with you that they are not an asset with respect to NPP now and are unlikely to be so in the near future. I am glad they are enthusiastic and I hope they accumulate more experience at RCP.

Right now the only thing to do is see if they start marking new pages patrolled again and then take them to ANI. (They have been asked to slow down or stop several times. They just blank their talk page at least daily.) I'm trying to work through their old patrols but I only get through a few per day when I need a break from RL work, and they have a couple hundred. JbhTalk 13:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Review of Matthew William Knowles[edit]

Hello Jbhunley and thank you for your review and feedback of the page Matthew William Knowles. I have reviewed your suggestions and added some additional citations to the page to help with authenticity of the content. I also removed your proposed deletion string (as per your suggestion). I welcome further review and suggestions to help improve this page. Matthew is one of the most popular American actors working in China today and we would like -in time- for his Wiki page to reflect this. Voleares195 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Voleares195: Unfortionatly IMDB is not considered an independant reliable source for purposes of notability and is questionable for other claims because it contains user generated content and material inserted by the subjects or their agents. What is needed are articles which provide significant coverage on the person ie a minimum of 2-3 good paragraphs. Passsing mentions, quotes. If the roles he had were significant then he likely will pass the notability criteria for actors but Wikipedia requires that the information in a biography of a living person be verifiable so each statement or claim needs to be supportable by something published in a reliable source.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a vehicle for promotion so a small amount of verifiable, encyclopedic, content in an article is much better than a press release bio. The best rule to follow is for each statement of fact make sure you can answer, and preferable cite in the article, "where did this information come from and how can a reader check its accuracy".(Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail.) JbhTalk 19:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, from the way you are writing is sounds like you may be associated with the actor or his press agent. Are you? If so Wikipedia requires that you disclose, per the policy on paid editing, your employer and client on your talk page and on the article's talk page and follow the best practices outlined in the conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. JbhTalk 20:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In relation to NPOV tag added to E. Jerome McCarthy[edit]

In relation to NPOV tag added to E. Jerome McCarthy, I would like to quote from WP policies

"WP:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." BronHiggs (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: . Thank you I am quite aware of the policies. Possibly I looked upon your contributions at that article with a more critical eye after seeing and removing this [8] clearly promotional edit you made elsewhere. We have a large problem here with promotional editing by PR firms and the like. While, after looking through some more of your edits and interactions I do not think that is the likely case with you, the overall tone of the article is often more hagiographical than biographical. He seems to indeed have made "great contributions" and the facts of his career and accomplishments demonstrate that quite clearly without the need to bang the reader over the head.

Read through the article again and compare it to the content and tone you would expect in Britannica, not a book forward. If you still disagree with the tag remove it, I will not reinstate it. JbhTalk 18:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to strike a balance that will satisfy all editors all the time. The bio on McCarthy was in danger of being removed because it did not meet the criteria for "notability" of academics. I cut my teeth on McCarthy's texts as a marketing student back in the 1970s, so I knew of his reputation and made a decision that it would be a shame to let the article slip into oblivion. So, I read the notability guidelines and set about adding some new content, with references, that would highlight his contribution to the discipline. Now apparently the article is "hagiographical" and banging "reader over the head".

I think I need to give Wikipedia away. There are far too many inconsistencies in editing decisions, policies and guidelines. BronHiggs (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: I would encourage you to stick with it. Looking through your other contributions it looks like you really have a lot to offer. It can be very frustrating for subject matter experts to edit in their area of expertise and it is often better to spend a while in other subject areas to learn how things work here. That way the inconsistencies and arcana of editing here are less personally frustrating. I, for one, never edit significantly in my primary of expertise - I would rapidly be driven to banging on my keyboard.

Wikipedia will always be inconsistent because there are thousands of editors with varying levels of knowledge both about subject matter, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the unwritten institutional knowledge of how things are done. There is no way around that. JbhTalk 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: That is why I said read it like it was going to be an Encyclopedia Britannica article. If it passes that test chances are the consensus will be it is OK. JbhTalk 19:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @BronHiggs: I saw your comment [9] (I was watching that user's page for another reason) where you described my comments to you as "nasty". It is hard to communicate tone in a text only conversation and I apologize unreservedly if anything I said came across as nasty, that was not my intention. A couple comments you made there also show me that I failed to adequately communicate with you:
a) "one person informed me that subject matter experts should not edit in their area" - please note above I said "It can be very frustrating for subject matter experts to edit in their area of expertise" this is because Wikipedia has content policies and a writing style which is foreign to other disciplines - it is much closer to writing a high school book report than an academic or professional paper. Opinions, analysis and "assumed knowledge" are not allowed due a policy disallowing original research and the policy of verifibility requires every statement to be able to be traced to a reliable source. Not every statement need have a citation, but when you are writing a Wikipedia article you need to, at least to yourself, be able to say "I can back this statement from this source". For some, even worse than these, is that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, your text may be removed or challenged or the wording you spent time crafting will be changed for some arcane Wikipedia specific reason that seemingly makes no sense. No professional or expert would be used to that and most viscerally hate it. I stand by my statement that it is less emotionally stressful to learn how editing here works in an area in which you have some interest but, unlike your area of professional expertise, little emotional investment.
b) "these people are very unreasonable - and once they decide to delete they won't back down." I am not sure where that came from but if it is from our interactions please note that above I said to read through the article to see if you thought it had an appropriately encyclopedic tone and if you did to remove the tag and I would not contest it. If it has to do with the Category killers you are correct, the edit was unsourced and promotional. Note that your series of edits [10] removing the other unsourced examples was not objected to by me, any of the recent changes patrollers nor any of the editors who watch that page.
Learning to deal with the editing environment here is very difficult, more so for subject matter experts for the reasons I pointed out above. I hope you choose to stick with editing Wikipedia through the rough patches. You seem to have a great deal of expertise and I thank you for being willing to contribute some of that expertise to this project. JbhTalk 14:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Category Killers[edit]

I am very curious about the logic behind editing decisions.

You tell me that you removed a description of the Australian firm, Officeworks, from the page on Category killers because it was "clearly promotional" yet you left behind more than half a dozen retailers that include content which could readily be construed as "promotional" but remain totally unsourced. The examples are Toys 'R Us; Google, Petsmart, E-Bay, Amazon, Circuit City, CarMax (incidentally all US outfits) and others - yet you chose to delete the only non-US example on the page. This doesn't seem like very balanced editing.

The content on Officeworks is factual and verifiable. The source, Officeworks website, is in my view the best place to obtain a list of product categories on offer. I am not in any way associated with this firm - but for a variety of reasons, I did want to include an Australian example in the list. (I could just as easily have listed our hardware giant, Bunnings and it would have included comparable content with similar sources. I have no idea why I settled on Officeworks for this example. BronHiggs (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia only really cares about what independant reliable sources has to say about a topic. What you would need is a good source which defines OfficeWOrks as a "Category Killer", not your own assessment it is one. Also, a good rule of thumb is if something is written like a PR flack or press agent for the firm wrote it or if it sounds like a blurb you would find in a trade publication etc it is not acceptable for Wikipedia.

It is possible the entire article category killer or much of its content is not appropriate. I would need to spend more time going through it and the sources but I do not need to do that to your edit was not appropriate. The wording was highly promotional and the sources were answers.com which was both unreachable and not a reliable source, and the OfficeWorks home page which does not support anything - it is just a home page. Just because one thing is wrong does not mean something else should be as well. The Wikipedia term for that argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Whether the example was non-US or not is immaterial and, frankly, is the kind of argument I often see from PR people trying to push their edit into Wikipedia.

From your second paragraph I can tell you either have not read the reliable source guidelines or not internalized them. Please pay particular attention to primary vs secondary sources. You should also carefully read the neutral point of view policy.

If you want your edit to stand it is pretty simple - write in a neutral tone, eschewing promotional language, and provide reliable sources which support the specific statement or claim being made. You should also pay attention to WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE which addresses whether a claim is significant enough to be included in an article. JbhTalk 19:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you. Yes I have read the guidelines on reliability. In particular, I note the follwing:
  • "Context matters: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content".
  • "Primary sources... can be both reliable and useful in certain situations" (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources) and, elsewhere WP notes that reliable sources are required for content that is likely to be "controversial" And, what could be a more reliable source than a retailer's website (i.e. a primary source) for a simple list of the products offered for sale? It is hardly a controversial claim, requiring independent evidence.
In any case, if you want to delete the ONLY non-US example on the Category Killer page, so be it. I am not about to insert it back again. Australian students who rely on Wikipedia to prepare their essays and reports will just have to do a bit more headwork to locate relevant local examples to illustrate their writing. BronHiggs (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
First, please read this brief guide on how to edit talk pages so I do not have to keep reformatting your text and it can be followed both by me and others. Second, a laundry list of products is not encyclopedic content. In general only things which have been commented on by third party reliable sources are considered significant. That an office supply store sells office supplies is pure marketing and reads as such. Third, I really do not care where the company is from, what matters is whether an independent reliable source talks about it as a "category killer" and that its addition to the article not look like an advert.

Until you get the hang of sourcing and NPOV here I would suggest that you limit yourself to what independent, third party reliable sources which have strong editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy have to say about a topic and phrase it like you are writing copy for Britannica. JbhTalk 20:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @BronHiggs: Per above [11], yeah I was a bit over harsh here, sorry. JbhTalk 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you[edit]

I thank you for taking the time to reconsider your comments and I accept your apology.

I keep hearing, not just from you, but also from others, that Wikipedia ONLY cares about reliable, independent, third party sources for every statement. Apparently this is a widespread interpretation amongst Wikipedians, but it is not consistent with WP's formal, written policies and guidelines. It seems that "custom and practice" has come to take precedence over formal policies. The reality is that this makes it almost impossible for newcomers to develop acceptable material - because by definition, newcomers do not have sufficient experience or insight to know what customs and practices are in play and when they misjudge the prevailing mood, they cannot turn to the policies for guidance or support.

There are so many problems with a number of the Marketing pages. I would have liked to fix them. I have the knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to do so. But I am wasting my time when content is deleted/ challenged almost as soon as it is added. Wikipedia has traditionally operated on an incremental improvement approach - but new content does not get much of a chance to undergo improvements under the prevailing 'deletionist' mentality that seems to pervade the Wiki environment.

Wikipedia is what it is. And, if the majority have decided that new content is to be challenged or deleted wherever possible, then so be it! The downside of this approach is that it scares away potential new editors and consumes enormous amount of time resources that could arguably be better spent actually fixing up pages with substantive and structural problems.

(Incidentally the article on Category killers is a good case in point - as it suffers from definitional problems - the current definition is inaccurate and potentially misleading because it omits the key criterion for a category killer. For the record, the key to being classified as a category killer is that an outlet must specialise in a given category of goods or services e.g. a hardware store might not just sell tools and timber, but might also extend the offerings to include outdoor furniture, Do-It-Yourself Kitchen/ Bathroom Cabinetry, gardening supplies, barbecues etc and some even offer classes/ seminars for the home handyman. Category killers have the potential to become dominant in the market because they are effectively one stop shops and with volume purchasing power, they are able to undercut the prices of small, independent market players. BUT, being dominant is not an essential criterion for a category killer in the way that the current definition implies). You will note that I have not sourced a relevant definition for my understanding of category killer, so feel free to ignore these comments if you wish.)

Anyway, I have promised myself that I will not waste more time responding to challenges. I have a couple of unfinished WP tasks that I intend to wrap up over the next few days, and then I will be leaving Wikipedia alone. The last three weeks have shown me that I am temperamentally unsuited to the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the Wikipedia environment.

BronHiggs (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Southern Networks, Ltd[edit]

This should be the correct title to the Southern Networks article. I made a modification to the Southern Networks page and added the Southern Networks Ltd. page where the content was copied to. I hope this was appropriate, as I just wanted to correct it, but I couldn't change the title of the original page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shull12345 (talkcontribs) 04:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shull12345: Wikipedia naming policy typically leaves off Ltd, Inc, SA etc. Also the page you created was a copy/paste which would loose the edit history of the other article which is required for copyright attribution. I have changed the page you created into a WP:REDIRECT. JbhTalk 11:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

E. Jerome McCarthy - DYK?[edit]

Hi,

Just a thought, it looks to me as if E. Jerome McCarthy may qualify as a Did you know? for BronHiggs. Perhaps something like:

"Did you know... that E. Jerome McCarthy was deemed by the Oxford Dictionary of Marketing to be "pivotal figure in the development of marketing thinking"[1] beginning with his 1960 textbook, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach that introduced his 4 Ps marketing mix?

What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ G. Dominic (2009). "From Marketing Mix to E-Marketing Mix: A Literature Review" (PDF). International Journal of Business and Management. 9 (4): 17–24. ,
@CaroleHenson: Yes, I think he would be good DYK for BronHiggs. May I suggest;
  • "Did you know... that E. Jerome McCarthy is considered a "pivotal figure in the development of marketing thinking" by the Oxford Dictionary of Marketing for introducing the 4 Ps of marketing in his 1960 textbook, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach".
I don't know the rules for DYK hooks, can they be footnoted? Also, great job on fixing and expanding the article. JbhTalk 21:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that looks great! I don't remember either, I thought since it was a claim, I'd throw the reference in there and let the DYK process resolve it. I found a 4Ps image (that I added to the article) that could be used as the image there.--CaroleHenson (talk)
Ok, Jbh and BronHiggs, it's posted Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 30.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Great! JbhTalk 21:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: Thanks Carole, You have been marvellous.
It's my pleasure. The cool part of the process, aside from getting a DYK for you, is that other editors come in and fine tune the article even more. And, then, when it's accepted it will get visibility on the main page. Hanging-in-there pays off!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Houda Darwish[edit]

I appreciate that Houda Darwish looks in every way like a speedy candidate. Nevertheless I'd like to see if she can be salvaged, so I've removed the speedy tag. I'm hoping the Africa Destubathon will adopt her. We'll see. If there's nomovement after a week or so then she can be re-speedied or prodded. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: OK but please remember that the whole point of a speedy is to get rid of non-policy compliant articles and this is a BLP. If you could put something in the article that just says who she is and what she did ie something that shows there is a remote chance it can be improved it would help a lot. Right now all I see are social media pages, nothing that shows me she may pass GNG or AUTHOR. Her ar.wiki page [12] does not help. It seems to be a first person bio based on what I gleen from Gtranslate. The picture also looks like it is copyvio from [13]. JbhTalk 00:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your indulgence; I recognise I'm on very thin ice. I've tweaked it slightly. My logic - to the extent I have such - is 1. probably over-supportive of women biographies given the large gender imbalance on wikipedia 2. probably over-supportive of non-western biogs, and especially biogs posted by (probable) non-English speakers and 3. most RS for this person, if there are such, are likely to be arabic language rather than English. The image on the website you point to is a derivative of the one posted to the commons; I presume whoever was responsible for the page you point to might well be responsible for the article which arrived here.
I've done what I can; I'll not hold it against you if in your judgement it should get the chop. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll hold off AfD for a while to give the article a chance. The page the image search returned seems to be some awards page - The Karta Arabic Fiction Awards. I do not know if that is a notable award though. The only person who I can think of who may be able to shed some light on her is;
@Huldra: Sorry for the ping out of the blue. Do you know anything of this author? Do you think the article may be salvageable? Thank you.
JbhTalk 00:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I have never heard off her (which does´t mean anything: I know nothing about Algerian writers.) However, info should possibly be translated from the ar.wp-article? (For anyone who does not rely on translate.google...) I see her one book (Amour en Quete Sa Nation) is available on fr.amazon, which is basically her one point of notability. If so, my 2 cents: not a speedy. (I don´t know the publisher, though: is it one of the self-publishers?? If so, I might change my mind... ) Huldra (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. It looks like the publisher is probably a vanity publisher based on [14] and their services menu [15].

The language barrier is definitly a problem for assessing notability in these situations. The Arabic wiki page seems to have a lot of similarities with the Karta award bio so I am not sure it is not part of some promo push, but I am restricted to what Google spits out so it could just be the bad translation. Anyway, thank you again. JbhTalk 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Knight architects[edit]

Just wondering why it sounds promotional? I have research other architects wikipedia pages and used exactly the same format. So why have their pages not been deleted? I'm really confused so would appreciate some clarification. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archilover (talkcontribs) 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Archilover: the article has been deleted so I can not see it to give you any specifics. However both I and the deleting administrator would have had to find it overly promotional for it to have been deleted. Articles are judged against Wikipedia's content guidelines not against each other. I would suggest you pay particular attention to the requirement that articles be written from a neutral point of view using reliable sources. Those sources must also be independant from the article subject to demonstrate that, in this case, it passes the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. JbhTalk 15:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Archilover: you can also ask the admin who deleted the article, because he can still read it. It was User:Bgwhite. Bishonen | talk 06:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

Name chagrin[edit]

Hey, "name chagrin" is good![16] Hope it wasn't merely your spellchecker having trouble with "name change"? Bishonen | talk 06:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I have to give credit to my autocorrect. It has an irrepressible and rather droll sense of humor :) JbhTalk 15:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Flag?[edit]

Can someone tell me why this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer is still flagged?

Thanks

Kc2290 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kc2290

@Kc2290: Looking at it briefly I would say it is because it looks to be cited almost entirely to her own writings rather than to independant reliable sources. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require significant coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of an article subject. What this means is a source must be published by a third party with a solid reputation for fact checking and accuracy. We need this to be able to verify the information in an article. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

Also, Wikipedia is not for promotion of a subject or their views. The article spends much more space discussing what she says rather than what others are saying about her. JbhTalk 19:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks. I'm going to make the changes needed to get the flag removed. Kc2290 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)kc2290
Can someone please remove the flag from this page. I've made the necessary corrections.
Thanks
Kc2290 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kc2290
Why hasn't the flag template been removed from this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer ?
If someone knows how, I ask that you please do so.
Thanks Kc2290 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)kc2290
@Kc2290: from what I can see the article needs considerable work before those tags can be removed. In particular I would suggest removing most of the Views sections which are only attributed to her works. What Wikipedia is typically interested in is what other people say in independent reliable sources about an article's subject.

Several editors have recently done some improvements and they would be in a better position to answer your questions. Also, there is the WP:TEAHOUSE where there are experienced editors who work with new users. However, your best course of action is to discuss the issue on the article talk page - Talk:Iliana Mercer - where you can ask editors who are familiar with and involved in editing the article. You may also want to ask the editor who placed the tags [17], Volunteer Marek, about them. JbhTalk 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

NPR[edit]

If you have a moment, could you please check this over for me. Correct it, edit as you wish, or leave a note here. Tnx for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

See my comment at [18]. Cheers. JbhTalk 15:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-requesting Randall Carver[edit]

Hello again. Long time no see. Can you help me expand the lede? I boldly added his role in Taxi but am still uncertain about summarizing other less notable roles. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge tree training[edit]

I recently created a new article for a training company called knowledge tree training. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_tree_training

Seems as though it is set to no index though. So it isn't in the search engine results. Why is that and how do I fix it?

I recently created a page for the knowledge academy and it is indexed fine...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Knowledge_Academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjackclayton (talkcontribs) 13:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mrjackclayton: New articles created on Wikipedia now do not show up in search results until a new page reviewer has looked them over to make sure they are compliant with Wikipedia's content policies or, in case a reviewer misses one, they have been unreviewed for 90 days. The NOINDEX is something that was implemented several years ago but was non-functional until a month or so ago due to a software bug.

The new article you mentioned, based on a brief read, does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for businesses and organizations. The sources are press releases, which are not independent reliable sources. The notability guideline I linked previously has more details about they types and depth of coverage that is required.The article also contains considerable amounts of copyvio text, which I have removed.

If you have some better sources for the article please consider adding them. I will also see if I can dig up anything. Without better sources the article will very likely be deleted. JbhTalk 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mrjackclayton: I reviewed the article and searched for adequate source material and did not find anything of note. Wikipedia exists to document what others say about topics and not as a promotional vehicle for new companies that do not have significant coverage elsewhere. If I missed the needed coverage please add the new sources to the article and leave a note in the deletion discussion. If the article then, in my opinion, passes Wikipedia's notability criteria I will Withdraw my deletion nomination. My opinion, however, counts no more nor less than any other editor's does and the opinions of many editors will be weighed in the discussion, yours included so please comment at the deletion discussion. JbhTalk 17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

NPP next steps[edit]

Hi Jbh. We're pretty much in a holding pattern until the current RfC is formally closed, but would you like to start talking about what direction to go with that new bit of text about disruptive patrolling? I'm still struggling to figure out where exactly it should go. It seems too specific to be inserted directly into WP:DE. It would certainly fit in WP:NPP, but that isn't a guideline. Perhaps we should just seek consensus for that statement in general, include the text at NPP, and provide a link to the RfC affirming it? That would be functionally similar to it being in a guideline. I'd be happy to hear better alternatives. ~ Rob13Talk 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Let me think on it a bit and read through the comments at the RfC. I'm pretty busy in RL right now, holidays are not a break for me - they are actually busier because of the nature of what I do, this year in particular, likely until mid/late January. JbhTalk 22:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hang Ten SEO[edit]

Hang Ten SEO page was created because it is a company based in Austin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_based_in_Austin,_Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by HangTenSEO (talkcontribs) 23:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tom Crandall From HangTenSEO: hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Your article was deleted for a couple of reasons. First it was promotional, more like an advert than an encyclopedia article. Second, all articles on Wikipedia must meet certain criteria to be accepted as notable. In this case the criteria can be found in the General notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Essentially there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources ie newspapers, magazines, books, etc which discuss the topic.

If you think the article meets those guidelines you may want to use our Articles for Creation process to write the article in draft space and have an experienced editor review it before it is placed in main space. This will give you more time to work on the article without it being quickly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's content guidelines. You should also familiarize your self with Wikipedia's policies on paid editing and conflict of interest. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me ({{ping|Jbhunley}}) from any talk page. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.

(Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail.) JbhTalk 15:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RepairQ[edit]

Hello. I understand after reading more in to the way other Wikipedia articles are formatted how the RepairQ page should be changed. I will work on re-doing it tomorrow. Please do not delete it until I have a chance to heavily modify it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travish212 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


Looks like it was deleted. Travish212 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Travish212: Hi. The article was deleted for a few of reasons. First it was a copyright violation which means it was not a candidate to move to draft space. Everything you put on Wikipedia must be in your own words and with a few exceptions never published or posted anywhere else. Second, it was promotional, more like an advert than an encyclopedia article. Third, all articles on Wikipedia must meet certain criteria to be accepted as notable. In this case the criteria can be found in the General notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Essentially there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources ie newspapers, magazines, books, etc which discuss the topic.

If you think the article meets those guidelines you may want to use our Articles for Creation process to write the article in draft space and have an experienced editor review it before it is placed in main space. This will give you more time to work on the article without it being quickly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's content guidelines. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me ({{ping|Jbhunley}}) from any talk page. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.

(Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail.) JbhTalk 15:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travish212 (talkcontribs) 15:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BrownHairedGirl_and_categories[edit]

While I appreciate your efforts here, and certainly there shouldn't be two separate dispute resolution attempts going on at one time, I think closing this AN/I thread was premature. The arbitration case will almost certainly be unanimously denied due to prior steps in the WP:DR process not being followed. I encourage you to undo your close of this thread, and notify Nyttend and BrownHairedGirl that you have done so. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft:, Floquenbeam beat me to it [19]. JbhTalk 16:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Jbhunley, I intended to ping you at ANI to let you know that I just re-opened the ANI thread, but I forgot to link your name there, though I invoked it 3-4 times. Normally that would have been a wise move, but as Hammersoft says, there's no way they're going to accept the case, and closing the ANI thread means several days of people sitting around getting more unhappy, waiting for the case to be officially declined. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    No problem. My own reopening edit conflicted with yours. I agree that ANI is where this should be. I have just seen stuff go bad when there is a free for all ANI going on at the same time as a structured RfAr. They can feed on each other particularly when one editor is really worked up as seemed to be the case last night. Cheers! JbhTalk 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Floquenbeam! I took the liberty of informing Nyttend and BrownHairedGirl of the re-opening. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to do that next, but I'm too slow for you kids these days with your fancy non-arthritic hands and not-so-easily-confused minds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: What are we talking about? You know, in 2017 I've upped my skills...now I can forget what I am doing while I am doing it! ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou[edit]

Thank you for putting the proper edits on my page. Pretty sad that I had to start my own. I have been suffering with mental illness since I was a small child (plus a brain disorder affecting my frontal lobes causing severe learning disabilities) and life has not been fair and I have no friends. I wanted to start this because I want my story to mean something after I'm gone. I do hope my little notoriety as a transgendered person will help me to be heard on my way out from this world. I have a message that I hope brings more love and understanding to people like myself and so many others. Thank you for making the entry correct and maybe someone will be kind enough to tell my whole story for the benefit of all who suffer with gender or mental health issues, trauma, PTSD and much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelberke (talkcontribs) 01:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy[edit]

I'm happy you're doing a bio on Karl Meier I believe he's an important figure in gay history. My best... Ernesto erezlove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erezlove (talkcontribs) (Moved to own section. Original edit is [20] Jbh Talk 01:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletions[edit]

Hi, just letting you know that I declined your speedy deletion nominations for Simunition and James Barker Band, both under A7. Simunition credibly indicated significance with its one reference, and a Google search revealed more reliable sources that discussed the company's product. James Barker Band is signed to a notable label with a Wikipedia article, which is a credible claim of significance. Additionally, a Google search revealed more information about the band. Thanks, Appable (talk | contributions) 01:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Appable: thanks for the note. I will send them to AfD. All I could find on Simunition is a lot of passing mentions but nothing that gets them past GNG or NORG. I can see how being signed to a notable lable could be seen as a claim of significance but there is nothing about the band online beyond one article in The Boot [[21]] which I'm not sure is an RS and a lot of blogs, Spotify, Apple Music etc. Nothing which gets them past GNG or BAND. If you found something more please let me know and I will withdraw the noms and speedy close them. Hope you are having a good weekend! Jbh Talk 02:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Appable: Ooppss... I missed one of my search windows for James Barker Band. I closed the AfD, added a couple of sources and cleaned out the linkspam to their agent. My bad, sorry. Jbh Talk 02:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with your withdraw of James Barker Band and your assessment of Simunition (only trivial mentions); I've just commented as such on the AFD for Simunition. Thanks for letting me know, Appable (talk | contributions) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with page[edit]

I understand that notability needs to established with third part reliable sources. Your suggestions suggest adding awards. Does someone notable have to win awards in order to be notable. Also, there are plenty of third party sites referencing my subject and they are video sites playing historic videos of the subject such as YouTube users who uploaded and Facebook archive pages. Are those considered sources to establish notability ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flattonic (talkcontribs) 01:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Flattonic: The reason I suggested awards is because you had several unsourced claims about awards in the article and some awards may be used to establish notability. It depends on which one. Personal YouTube accounts and Facebook are not useful for establishing notability. There were a lot of links in the post I made on your talk page the most important are the general notability guideline and notability criteria for entertainers which discuss how to demonstrate notability, and identifying reliable sources. Essentially you need to provide a few independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. They must be about him, not by him. They must not be from PR agencies, press releases, from his employer or anyone in any related to him or his work. The sources must have solid editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I hope this helps some. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. Jbh Talk 01:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

MOHAMMED SANI HARUNA[edit]

Dear Jbhunley, I noticed the page "Mohammed Sani Haruna" was flagged for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted. Mohammed Sani Haruna, is the Executive vice Chairman/CEO of National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI) with Mr President of Nigeria as the Chairman and 8 Ministers of the federal republic of Nigeria as members of the board. The page is only intended to show the biography of the CEO and not for any promotional purpose. Kindly, restore it back for editing and tell me what needs to be taken out to avoid it seems promotional.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisozohu (talkcontribs) 15:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Francisozohu: I can no longer see the article since it was deleted. If it was speedy-deleted for promotionalism then is was unquestionably inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. For an article to be acceptable it must be written from a neutral point of view and must contain citations to independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. See the General notability guidelines for more on the notability requirements.

Please click through and read the blue links. Those terms mean specific things on Wikipedia. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ Jbh Talk 16:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thank you very much for your feedback, having read that the article was written with no intention of promotionalism, what should be my next action to have it accepted and inclusion in wikipedia, moreover the article is also subject to and open for editing, can i have it reposted with links/citations and you may kindly guide me on it (on what to take out to avoid it being promotional). Francisozohu (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Francis
@Francisozohu: The admin who deleted the article is Vanamonde93. You can ask them to restore the article, place it at Draft:Mohammed Sani Haruna. Make sure you have a few independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. Think newspaper articles, magazine articles, books etc. They must discuss the subject in detail - I usually look for at least three paragraphs of coverage and two to three sources. They must have good editorial control, have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, not be press releases or other PR material and be completely independent of the subject and his work. When you write do not write it like a resume, stick only to facts which can be verified by the source and make sure to cite the source where you got the information.

I would suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process. This will have experienced editors review the article and make comments on how to improve it before it goes into Main space. This will give you time to make sure the it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without it being quickly deletes. All you need to do is add {{AFC draft}} at the top of Draft:Mohammed Sani Haruna when it is restored and, when you think the article is ready, follow the directions for submitting it for review.

You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages to see how to properly indent/thread talk page conversations. It will help you when you are discussing things with other editors and allow readers to easily follow the conversation. Jbh Talk 20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide a copy of the deleted article, provided Francisozohu is willing to undertake not to move it from the draft space without addressing the concerns of promotional content. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: ::: @Vanamonde: Thank you very much for your understanding and responses, i appreciate and i undertake to abide by the rules to have the article properly edited to address the promotional concern. your guide and assistance to achieve it, is highly solicited too. Francisozohu (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixing ping @Vanamonde93: Jbh Talk 12:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but could you do me a favour?[edit]

Thank you for thanking me for this. Is it safe to assume that you were tacitly approving of my removing the header you put on the hat? Another user has reverted me twice based on the claim that I shouldn't be "refactoring" your "comments", which seems kind of ironic when the user who actually wrote the "comment" in question thanked me for the edit. I know I posted a lot of other stuff and you may have been only thanking me for striking my earlier comments and abandoning the final warning proposal, but could I get your definite approval or disapproval on the removal of the hat title?

It seems really ironic that you explicitly hatted my proposal off so we could focus on the TBAN proposal, which is strongly opposed by DK, who apparently thanked Softlavender for "defending" your hat title, while you thanked me yourself for the edit that removed the title.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: The thanks was for you saying you were backing off the ANI discussion and letting it run its course. I had already struck the "bickering" part of the header and do consider the section unhelpful however I have now struck the rest as a courtesy. I don't really object to the complete removal of the header but, per TPO I don't think is can really be straight up removed. Jbh Talk 14:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! (By the way: I agree that, at least at the time you hatted it, it was probably unhelpful. But if the thread gets closed with no warning, sanction, or block, then ... well, a promise of a block on the next instance of IDHT would have been better than nothing.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I actually asked about this on WT:TPO and apparently it all depends on context. At least in theory, my outright removing the hat (and therefore also removing your summary) could have been acceptable as far as TPO is concerned. Given that apparently at least one editor is all too happy to edit-war with me over that ad nauseum, that would have been a really stupid move on my part, but TPO doesn't actually mandate said user's reverting. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. My preference is to just leave it struck since there has been conversation about it and it does explain my thinking when I hatted the section but if you find it, as it stands, offensive I can replace it with "Heading removed per request". I don't want to leave a hat with no header though. Jbh Talk 15:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Have you ever thought about getting the mop and bucket? I particularly like some of the essays you've come up with for managing NPP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you! I had not really thought about RfA. I don't have any real content work so, from what I have seen, figured that would preclude a successful RfA. I do really like doing the 'back office' stuff here, like NPP, policy discussions and probably a bit too much time on the noticeboards. It fits well with my skill set and how my time is broken up. Thinking about it, I can see several places the admin toolset would be useful at NPP but, alas, I don't even have any stubs to my credit much less the GAs people seem to want to see. Jbh Talk 21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Work at it - your skills are needed at admin level. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't need GAs. Sure, some people will vote against you because you lack content creation but these days the majority of the community is focused on whether or not you'll use the tools knowledgeably, wisely and responsibly. I had one stub-class article, NetMarket (humph, should be a Start or C-class), when I put in my RFA and the community gave me a remarkably easy time of it. Just make sure your contributions in the areas you work in are free from issues (e.g., personal attacks, pointy editing, failure to drop the stick, etc.) --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
My well-documented standard is User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. GAs are not necessary; in fact they can be risky as a GA is only as good as the nominator and reviewer make it; I had to cancel a RfA nomination because the candidate's sole GA didn't actually meet the standards (not their fault, they were told it passed GA and had no reason to disbelieve it). A quick look through your mainspace contributions shows you doing plenty of non-automated gnoming on articles, and that's absolutely fine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333, Kudpung, and NeilN: thank you for the advice and encouragement. I think that RfA would be a worthwhile, and from your input not unreasonable goal. I will look into writing some articles - I can probably come up a couple topics I can get a few hundred words out of. I have read through Kudpung and Ritchie's guides but do any of you have advice on how I should proceed or things that you have noticed that I should improve? Jbh Talk 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The only thing I've got is User_talk:RickinBaltimore/Archive_12#RfA, where I cobbled together a brief guide to beefing up an article and getting it to DYK. Wikipedia:Writing better articles and related pages have plenty of information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I will give it a read. Jbh Talk 20:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk Ct[edit]

Thank you. Re: Editing war article viz. Norwalk, Connecticut. I agreed to work with those editors and I do not like editing wars. Yet they engaged in a crossfire rampage on my past contributions placing deletion tags randomly at will. Then their claims to be experts and trying to tell me about unwritten or non-existent Wikipedia traditions that had to be adhered to. I did ask for advice (19:28, 9 February) and began what I believed to be the correct protocol for resolving disputes. Nonetheless, among the threats, harassment, insults and such I guess I caved and began doing what they were doing to me. For that I am guilty but now it seems the steam in their engines has cooled a bit. I hope to go on with my work. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 17:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir, I call your attention to the Norwalk, Connecticut and my user talkpage. They (M,JJBers and Ceoil) are at it again. What should I do? I did not start this. I need help here! Thank you!——→StephenTS42 19:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@StephenTS42: The first thing I would suggest is to stop reverting and edit warring against the current consensus. Regardless of the rights or wrongs or things it is disruptive. Remember it does not matter what the other editors are doing, you are responsible for behaving properly. Second, you should address the complaints at ANI, that is where this discussion should be taking place. If you all can not work out your disagreements go start dispute resolution. There seems to be a lot of your behavior, particularly on talk pages that is, at least, questionable - your edit summary here was unhelpful as well. Finally fix your signature. Per WP:SIGLINK "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". Jbh Talk 20:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

It seems I deleted Draft:Miss Tara at the exact time that you edited it (since the author requested deletion), somehow it left your latest revision there, but deleted all previous revisions – should I delete yours too, or undelete the history? Κσυπ Cyp   19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyp: please ask the original author. I think the article may pass notability on a technicality and I think they were requesting deletion becuase it had been declined for lack of notability earlier. Thanks! Jbh Talk 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Miss Tara has been accepted Not my article[edit]

Collapse notice. Copied to talk page of actual author
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AFC-Logo.svg
Miss Tara, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jbh Talk 21:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I...uh...did you just post a message on your own talk page telling yourself that you approved your own AfC submission? I'm confused. TimothyJosephWood 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: hmmm.... that is weird. The author of the article is Janweh64. There was some odd delete --> lose history --> restore history that went on so that might have done it. The other thing is that once it was restored I resubmitted and approved it since the prior decline had been done in error. Jbh Talk 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe there is a work around for that, unless something has changed you can choose to submit an AfC draft as the original author, at least normally, although the delete restore may have mucked it up. TimothyJosephWood 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There is an author parameter in {{AFC draft}} but I do not know how to do the equivalent using AFC Helper. I am not very familiar with it and probably missed the option. Jbh Talk 21:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen[edit]

His last comments, especially the one he just posted now, show why I recommend(ed) an indef block. No amount of reasoning will cure this. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@: People tend to vent after they are blocked and, in this case, he was poked but, in general, I agree with you that he is heading for a long block if something does not change. Beyond the blocking admin I do not think that there are really any admin eyes on this situation though. The next time, and it is looking like there will be a next time, I suggest that you make the ANI report concise and clearly illustrate, with diffs, the disruption caused. For example;
  • Persaonal attack - accused editors of socking with no evidence (diff) and doubled down when challenged (diff)
  • Violations of WP:TPO (diff) (diff) (diff)
  • Slow edit warring (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff)...
  • Talk page disruption (diff) (diff) (diff)...'
  • Attempted to resolve the issue (diff) but (diff) (diff)
  • etc.
Also, never engage in back and forth with the editor you take to ANI. It makes the thread long and greatly decreases the chance someone will look at it. This almost always leads to no action especially if this happens before an admin gets involved. (Not saying you do this. Just general advice on what I see at ANI)

I hope that he will modify his behavior. He has been around since 2009 and does not seem to have had any real issues [22] and does a lot of content work. Some people just do not do well when they are in a conflict situation and lose the plot a bit. Hopefully that is the case here and after the pressure of the current situation eases so will his behavior. Jbh Talk 17:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The article about Eugene Stepanenko is being considered for deletion. Why?[edit]

Dear @Jbhunley, I really dont understand why the article about Eugene Stepanenko is being considered for deletion from Wikipedia. This man is a one of Ukrainian heroes, who is defending Ukraine from Russion aggression. He serves in Special Forces and after contusion he started to make films about conlict and Ukrainian people who were engaged in it.

One of his film Debaltsevo was shown in London Film Academy and University of Oxford and in Ukrainian Club, Holland Park this January. Here is a link: http://www.ukrainianlondon.co.uk/en_GB/debaltseve-narrative-donbas-war-ukrainian-uk-media-film-screening-panel-discussion-24-01-2017/

I realy dont understand why he doesnt deserve to be in Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna uapershiy (talkcontribs) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anna uapershiy: No one deserves to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on what is appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. For articles the most important thing to be done is establish notability. For this we have out general notability guidelines which in short require significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. There are also various specific notability guidelines which give additional, usually easier to meet, criteria to establish notability. In this case those are the specific notability criteria for artists. Typically you need maybe three reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject that have about three paragraphs of material about the subject. If an article subject meets our notability criteria an article can be kept but it is not required to be kept. If the subject does not meet those criteria than there may not be an article on that subject included in Wikipedia. We do not make any judgement about the subject's importance or contribution to society we only judge if there has been enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to allow us to write an informative and neutral article.

Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page.

(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)

Jbh Talk 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thank you for your answer. Please, help me to make the article appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. As I understand I have to include in it some related links, but all information about this person is on Ukrainian, so what should I do? Write related articles in Wiki? User:Anna uapershiy
(edit conflict) There is no requirement that the sources be in English, only that they are completely independent from the subject and they meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources. Nominally, per Wikipedia's policy of verifibility all material should be citable to a reliable source. Material which can not be cited to a reliable source can be challenged and removed. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons, where extra care must always be exercised.

Again, please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Jbh Talk 16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Ive made corrections to the article and added 3 links to the reliable source. Is it enaugh for the article not to be deleted or should I found more sources?
Thank you for understanding and patient. Anna uapershiy (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anna uapershiy: Of the sources in the article #1 is written by him and is not about him, #2 is simply a listing about an event which is neither a reliable source nor something which would contribute to notability, #3 has potential, it is actually in-depth coverage about him. I have a question about zaxid.net though. What kind of site is is? In order for it to be considered a reliable source it must have strong editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy ie it must have professional journalists who write articles and an editorial board. Alone that source is not enough, however it is a good start assuming that zaxid.net can be considered a reliable source.

I would also suggest that you trim out all of the material that can not be cited to a reliable source. In particular the filmography is not really encyclopedic. If he has works which got coverage in reliable sources they can be noted - depending on the amount of coverage they might even merit an article of their own. Jbh Talk 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

PS I will be away for most of the rest of the day/evening US/East time, I do get email when someone posts on my talk page but I may not answer until tomorrow US/East. Your article subject looks very interesting. Don't give up! Cheers. Jbh Talk 18:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: Thank You a lot for your support and I am sorry for wastinng your time with numerous stupid questions. All can I say that becuaseits my first article for Wikipedia) So, I added more references. Can you, please, look at them and say what should I do next? Thank you in advance! Anna uapershiy (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anna uapershiy: Wow! I must have been writing a note on the AfD page while you were writing this... Anyway the "screening" sources do not really contribute to notability. The interview is, in my opinion, marginal because it, again, is not about him and looks to be part of a promotional tour. In general we discount material that is generated by public relations campaigns for books, movies, exhibits etc.

It might be better to create an article about the movie and give him a small section there. Documenting film notability is much easier for instance WP:NFO#2 says a film's notability can be demonstrated if "[t]he film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". (PS the ~~~~ should go at the end of your comment rather than the beginning.) Jbh Talk 13:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: So, as I understand the article about person will be deleted anyway and I should to write another article about film? Because, I find more information, but not sure if it is enough to make the article relevant(talk) 14:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Anna uapershiy: (edit conflict) It is very likely the article will be deleted. Before you write about the film though please read, carefully, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NFILM and WP:WEIGHT (any coverage of the person must not out weigh the coverage of the film). The independent reliable source requirement is the same - PR material, screening announcements etc are not useful for meeting notability requirements. In the case of recent films what you need are reviews from national or international newspapers, magazines or other outlets. You may want to consider using the Articles for Creation process so you have more time to gather sources without the article being deleted and to get input from other experienced reviewers. Also, if you would like, you can put a request on the AfD page to have the article moved to DRAFT space so you can work on it as more sources become available rather than having your work deleted. Jbh Talk 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Please, can you watch new references? I found new materials. Or there is no chances to save the article at all?))Anna uapershiy (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I can not judge the videos, I understand a bit of Russian (6yr old children laugh and think I'm dumb so a very little bit) and I can pick at Ukrainian text with a dictionary but judging audio/video sources is far beyond me. This [23] source may be good, what section of site is it in? Is it an article that was published in the paper or a blog entry? I will ask another editor who I believe speaks the language so can give a better opinion.

Pinging @Volunteer Marek: would you please take a look at Eugene Stepanenko and give your opinion? The two sources which I think may be good are [24] and [25] but I can not really get enough from them to tell if they are part of a film public relations drive. Thank you. Jbh Talk 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixing ping @Volunteer Marek: Jbh Talk 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Anna uapershiy: Based on input from some editors who have a command of the language and who located more sources I have withdrawn my deletion nomination [26]. The AfD will still run the full seven days because another editor !voted Delete. Jbh Talk 18:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: I want to thank you and all editors who joined this conversation for help! You are doing a great job! Have a nice day!Anna uapershiy (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive[edit]

Please forgive the WP:OVERCITE in Miles Doleac. It was caused by insurmountable resistance from AfC.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Please, just delete the filmography section. It is sufficiently covered in prose.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article is so loaded with what appear to be irrelevant cites that it is hard to see his notability. For instance he definitly does not pass WP:NPROF for his academic work, I do not see that his movies get him past WP:FILMMAKER and his roles are all seem pretty minor so not WP:NACTOR either. Maybe there is a case for WP:GNG but most of the articles seem to be hometown boy does good type stuff. It frankly looks like a bunch of sources were thrown up to see what sticks. There might be a couple of good ones in there but just looking at it is screams 'paid promotional editing'. (I see from the article history that you are not the first editor engaged to write this article) The Village Voice article is the only thing, so far, keeping this from WP:AFD but I will look more later. I am very unimpressed with the AFC reviewer's work on this. They did you a disservice passing this to article space in the condition it is in. I'm going to wait a day or so before finishing my review until I am in a better mood (unrelated to Wikipedia) so it does not splash over, unjustly, to your work.

May I suggest that when you start an article that you get three good sources and write everything you can write based on those three sources. After that, to flesh out the biography, you then can go to the second tier sources. You should always be able to write a basic article that passes Wikipedia's guidelines with three good sources. Also, never link to a site where the subject's books/films/whatever are offered for sale. Jbh Talk 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Simple GNG sources: hollywood reporter, Los Angeles Times, LA Times again, SF Weekly, Village Voice. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I should have requested a CSD for the early draft first. Then started fresh. You live and learn. I will keep sales sites out of my articles in the future. That was a dumb move on my part. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for those sources. I think the article would most likely pass AfD since he has a couple of films getting theatrical release and national press coverage. The local paper coverage adds depth which helps focus the notability on him rather than his work. Jbh Talk 14:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sudden new edits to "Bar Keepers Friend"[edit]

I hesitate to mention another editor in a negative light, but...does that "North America 1000" account now padding the above article with refs seem kinda suspicious? Like, "paid editor" suspicious? Yukimura (restaurant), Ramen Street, RigWorld, Hello Curry, Social Tables, Grovo, Bye Bye Birdie Live!, Skytap, Netmeds all seem like WP:PROMO. Most of those appear in their contribs after they deleted "PROD" tags. Sorry, I suck both at assuming good faith and knowing what the hell to do when I suspect someone is here to do others' bidding. Oh, and sorry for leaning on you for this. The blocks you see on my talk page (one of which was legit; the other, bullshit) apparently turn other editors' critical thinking faculties to mush. Or something. I'll shut up now.184.145.42.19 (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Northamerica1000 is a well known and well respected Wikipedia administrator and editor. They are simply doing their best to save an article they think worth saving, as we all do. Jbh Talk 03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose I should have visited their page before posting that. Nevertheless, the articles I listed all seem fishy. I stand by that, though knowing the hoops I'd have to jump through to get them deleted, I'm likely to just keep my head down and do pedantic copy edits until my eyes bleed. No other kinds seem to be encouraged, or even tolerated, of IP editors who messed up once (and was blocked twice, notably involving two admins from today). C'est la vie.184.145.42.19 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Your assertiveness, which is clearly based on good judgment, is admirable. Thank you for all the great work you do on WP. Atsme📞📧 21:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: thank you very much! Jbh Talk 22:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve Hassan BLP[edit]

I brought up some issues concerning the Steve Hassan BLP at the Talk page of that BLP. This includes self published single sourced entries in violation of Wikipedia and reliably sourced directly relevant criticism from a noted publisher ignored that is well within Wikipedia standards. Could you please explain why Wikipedia standards are not being consistently followed at this BLP.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

To all who have left me messages or pings recently[edit]

@Kudpung, BU Rob13, and Robert McClenon: I have been unable to do much of anything lately due to a sports injury. I hope to be back to making regular contributions in the next couple of weeks. My apologies for going silent for so long. Jbh Talk 12:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator[edit]

Wikipedia needs you! Take the poll.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

To receive feedback on your chances of successfully requesting administrative privileges, consider starting a poll:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Are you reading this on another user's talk page? If you are experienced and trusted, and would consider becoming an admin, you are very much encouraged to take the take the poll.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: My apologies for taking so long to reply, I have been recovering from a sports injury and PT has been taking up my time. Thank you very much for the encouragement and confidence - it means quite a bit to me. I do think I would enjoy contributing as an administrator and once I have been able to get back to regular contributions I will give some serious thought to an RfA. If you have any suggestions or advice please let me know. Again - thank you! Jbh Talk 13:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello my friend. No apologies necessary. I hope you are recovering well from your sports injury.
About suggestions and advice, well that is exactly what the poll is for. They will say something like "run now and you're a shoo-in" or "work these areas for a little while, and then you will do fine at RfA". All the best! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hasan Salama[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hasan Salama. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4[edit]

Hello Jbhunley,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 424 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

References and reference sources[edit]

Hi Jbhunley, I would like to upload the scanned copy of the article (the source is not available online), published in the French weekly newspaper and to use the link for the reference of my Wikipedia draft page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mickael_Pariente). Of course, I am going to add all the necessary information such as byline (author's name), title, translated title of the article, name of the newspaper. Can you please help me to determine what is the copyright status of my file is? Does Wikipedia allow this method of adding of references? Thank you in advance. AsyaM (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political decoy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political decoy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group[edit]

Hi Jbhunley,

In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)