User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Releasing copyright

Hi Joe!

I tried to submit an article that includes material that I produced myself and posted on another website. Is there a way for me to release that copyright so that it can be used on Wikipedia?

Thanks so much,

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanMeddy (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but, not being able to tell what article you're talking about, I should let you know that in the vast majority of cases, the text ends up being unusable in our encyclopedia anyway. Not because of copyright issues, but most of the cases where we have copyright issues people want to use text that is non-encyclopedic in tone. Promotional, like an ad, like a resume, something like that. As you're likely writing about a subject close to you, you should read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you still think it's worth pursuing, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Rescaled fairuse files

Hi! I wonder if this could be another task for your handy null-edit bot? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably! I'll try it out (manually, of course), I would imagine Files would similarly... and do a BRFA if I can get that working. Are there any other time-delayed speedies in the CSD F critiera I should be on the lookout for? --j⚛e decker^talk 21:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've filed a BRFA, that looks like precisely the issue the bot is already dealing with, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The other file deletion processes use categories like Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 24 May 2013, so there's no need to null-edit those. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm approved, and I'm doing a test run now, let me know if you see anything weird--I am seeing the files show up (at the expected pace) in the "after seven days" subcat. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

please pause

You're nominating G13s faster than I can check. I need to at least verify the last edit date. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I've got some grocery shopping to do. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, remember that the list was generated to exclude those which hadn't been edited in six months, *and* that the deleting administrator should also be checking that. I'll grant you that the latter is probably a little optimistic of me, but have you seen a single article, yet, with a newer edit date? I'm fairly sure that Catscan is more accurate than I am. --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, tho I was afraid of it. (It would be nice if the information about the last previous edit before the AfD notice--both the time and who made it-- were actually preserved and included in the G13, but that'll take some programming). But I've seen other problems: some have been blank because they were blanled by the submitter, and should be deleted as A7,so that if the editor returns, it'll show they had the good judgment to understand it was inadequate, Some have been entered in mainspace, and I need to check for that if the possibility is plausible because they're about 1/3 the time a problem also--and I give that as an additional reason. And those that are also G11s or G3s I want to mark as such, as well as G13, to give an indication to anyone looking to restore them. (of course, these should have been previous deleted, but we've in the past rarely done that for G11, tho we do for many (but not all!) G3s. The number of possible complications is multiplying as we work on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, a couple thoughts. We can certainly reduce the risk of the "hasn't edited in 6 months, but snuck in the last day or two" if I occasionally rebuild the list, maybe once per day. It's easy to do, so I'll do it, let's figure out how I can do that in a way that's not disruptive to your efforts. I'll keep the old lists (for accountability), but it'll be nice to not have to scroll through the ones that are gone.

I think you're right to want to catch the G3s, G11s, and G10s and G12s for that matter. And the ones that already have mainspace articles.

And yet, 40,000-50,000 drafts: Is it better to simply try and catch them at REFUND? I have to admit I don't know.

There are a LOT of G12s, or at least partial copyvios. And the in this tranche here are all ones that got by CorenSearchBot/MadmanBot--so those tools don't help us with this particular pile. I've done some tests, hoping to get some form of automation to provide some constructive help. But no luck. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the promotional list, the previous one is at the same title with a "/1" after it. I'll keep the newest list copy the "/Promotional" name, and put successive old copies at "/Promotional/1", "/Promotional/2", etc. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for building and operating User:Joe's Null Bot. Because of your work, CSD-nominated categories can now be processed more efficiently! Edge3 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Herbewo

Why rejected? Can not read polish? Article is about polish firm existed before comunism and prodused tobacco products. I don't understand why rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janusz Boron (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The articles for creation process is intended to be an English-language Wikipedia, one of over two hundred Wikipedias in each language. (There's a great list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias ) The Polish wikipedia is at http://pl.wikipedia.org/, and might very well be glad for your article. We're also happy to have articles about Polish subjects, but to be on en.wikipedia.org need to be written in English. Similarly, the articles on the Polish Wikipedia need to be written in Polish, those on the Thai Wikipedia in Thai, those on the Cherokee Wikipedia in Cherokee, and so on. The hundreds of wikipedias are organized this way as a service to readers--if a reader knows that they only speak three languages, they can look for articles on those Wikipedias but not the other ones. The Polish Wikipedia is quite large, one of the top ten largest Wikipedias by language, it's a great resource with nearly 1,000,000 articles. I hope you'll consider submitting your article to the Polish Wikipedia, and/or also consider writing articles in English for this one. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 15:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you just add your article here? [1] ... ? --j⚛e decker^talk 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DARRAC

Dear Joe

I have many references and original documents proving Mr. Darrac's notability . For example, I have the original 1812 receipt stating the patment of Mr. Darrac's invention !

How do I submit them to you ? Boksfaller (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joe

I have many references and original documents proving Mr. Darrac's notability . For example, I have the original 1812 receipt stating the payment of Mr. Darrac's invention !

How do I submit them to you ? Boksfaller (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I owe you a longer response, but that will have to wait for this evening. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Boksfaller,

Hi, thank you! First, please do not physically send us (or anyone here) any physical historical documents, those are artifacts and should not be subject to my or anyone's whims. I'm just a volunteer editor here.

For the most part, we need articles to be based more or less sources that have been through an editorial process. This is a general rule, there are certainly exceptions. This restriction is largely in place to avoid Wikipedia being a publisher of original research, which goes against our WP:NOR policy. This also means that the sources that get used are likely to be verifiable (another important policy here), which roughly means that most editors could, with some perhaps large effort, find the materials in question or have them looked at a library or some such to confirm the information within them. For those types of sources, we generally just need the sort of information one would need to track down a particular reference. For web-based materials that's easy (a title, a publisher, a URL, that sort of thing), but books, it's usually title/author/page number/year and if there is one, a Google Books link. The way we like those formatted is often a bit messy, and it's more important to get the information right than the formatting, but one thing can help, I'd suggest checking out Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which includes a nice video showing how to use the RefToolbar, which makes working with references a whole lot easier. I don't know if this addresses your question, but I'm happy to talk to you more about what sources you have and which can be used here. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joe I have posted 3 books which cite Mr. Darrac Hopefully this is OK for you. KInd Regards Boksfaller Boksfaller (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Boksfaller (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joe,

In the meantime I have uploaded a facsimile of Mr. Darrac's Invention from the Paris Archives.

Boksfaller (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I found the images you uploaded, and added links to them to show you how that works.

I do need you to do one thing, please add :

{{subst:submit}}

to the top of your page, that will resubmit it for review. Also, please check that the changes I made (I got rid of what I believe was an older copy of the article) are correct. You can find older versions in the article history if I've made an error.

I will have to allow another reviewer to do the next pass on the article, and I'm sure he or she will be around to provide their input in the next couple days. I also fixed up one of the references with our fancy citation templates, if you're interested in how to do it, read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which includes a nice video showing how to use the RefToolbar, which makes working with references a whole lot easier.

Thanks for your patience! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Joe

I resubimitted the article !!

Boksfaller (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Allen W. Wood

Hi Joe! Just found some time to buff up that Allen W. Wood page - I think you'll agree it's a much more suitable article for the Wikipedia now. This was always what I intended to do, but I mistakenly thought 'approve the page first, edit it later'. You can see now the standard I intend this page to have, which should be comparable to the Kendall Walton page I put together. I will do even more work on this one once it is approved. Hope you can get around to checking this soon, ChrisBateman (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I owe you a more thorough response, and evaluation of it. It's an improvement, for sure, thanks. At first glance I'm mostly seeing listings of Wood's publications, if there is anything that talks about Wood's work that isn't his work itself, that would be important to include. As I haven't had a chance to go through them all and look up what I can, by myself, I might be missing some that are there, this isnt' a formal review, just a hint as to what the next reviewer might be looking for. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 04:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Work (song) (direct link)

Hello, could you move the target of this to Work#Songs? Thank you.--Launchballer 20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

G13

Hi Joe. You may want to leave the G13 tag off of AFC submissions that're copyvios and maybe even G11 promos. If someone requests a refund, as they're told they can under G13, we can't restore copyvios, and I don't know if we want to restore spammy submissions either. Also, G13 tags put the AFC in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as rejected AfC submissions, which could be a handy cat to do a batch deletion from when there's a pile of them. Of course with those, we'd want to batch delete only straight G13s. INeverCry 04:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. Thanks, and Roger Wilco! (Do be a little careful with the batch dels, though, one potential G13 error is missing the 6-month criterion. I'm working from database searches to avoid problems, but I will screw that up at least once, someday, somehow. *grin*) --j⚛e decker^talk 04:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing - I think it's good to tag the spammier G13s as G11 only, it may help to reduce the number of people who haven't touched their rejected draft for years (in one case, over four years) but still rush to REFUND the minute it's deleted. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. If I'm in doubt that something really meets G11 I may still default to G13, but I'm now not tagging both. Similarly, if you're entirely sure that one of my G13s is also a G11 from this pile, feel free to delete it thusly, or kick it back. Feedback on where I'm being too lenient/harsh on G11s is welcome as well. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined Submission

Greetings Joe. I have been doing some additional work on this declined submission. Prior to resubmitting, I was hoping you might take a look to see if the neutral point of view criteria has now been satisfied. Kindest regards, ~AM Porter amp 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amillenporter (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'd missed this. I'd say it's substantially better, and there's not much that stands out as a problem, although the next reviewer might catch something I didn't. I did make some stylistic changes to adjust our manual of style. From a previous career, however, one sentence kinda feels off to me, "Zycus introduced AutoClass,[3] which used artificial intelligence (AI)[2] - statistical probability and dynamic learning in lieu of rigid mapping algorithms," I get that this is automatic classification (which you might link to Cluster analysis, that's a type of AI, and those techniques inherently use probability, and probability is statistical, from the way I'm used to hearing the words used this is a little repetitive, which comes off as a little buzzwordy. If you think this can be sourced, something like "Zycus introduced AutoClass, which performs automatic classification using artificial intelligence (AI) rather than rigid mapping algorithms...", something like that. I doubt I'd decline over that, though. Thanks for your patience with all this! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Your prompt reply is MUCH appreciated. 71.184.113.55 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --j⚛e decker^talk 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Page for Brig. Gen. John Adams

Hello,

Approximately two weeks ago we corresponded about the page for Brig. Gen. John Adams, which had been too similar to other biographies. I've redone it to differentiate it from those other biographies. Please review at your earliest convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Adams. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eauner (talk • contribs) 19:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There are still some fairly substantial duplicate wordings. It really is best to try and rewrite from scratch, it's very difficult to get all the copyrighted sections of an article out without simply rewording from scratch, but if you want to see what I'm seeing, the tool is available at [2] --j⚛e decker^talk 22:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've used the comparison tool and rewritten the sections where there was duplication. Let me know if this new version clears up any outstanding issues. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Adams

I wrote the above comment a few days ago. At your convenience, can you please let me know if the page no longer risks violating any copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eauner (talk • contribs) 21:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'd missed this before now. I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice, but looking at the report, it's probably fine.--j⚛e decker^talk 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Great thank you! It is currently waiting for review, but are you able to approve it on your end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eauner (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this for the next reviewer to decide. Possible points of concern include the use of videos as references vs. WP:External links/Perennial websites, and so on, and I've gotten swamped here in my day life. My apologies for the delay. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi, Joe. I wonder if you could take a minute to look at this, as well as the IP's reply to my warning. I reverted once but would like a second opinion before doing so again. Rivertorch (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Back in a few minutes... --j⚛e decker^talk 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried as hard as I possibly could to WP:AGF of the IP reading through that discussion, but the end of point 5 did me in. There's no perfect test for trolling vs. POV warring, but it's my view that that's disruptive trolling, and I would support continued reverting, warning, etc. I deal far more with content issues than editor behavior issues, so I'm the wrong person to ask if this is call for an immediate block, but I would certainly back you on reverting and, in any future discussion, on what I think the hard question is here--I don't believe the editor is acting in good faith, point 5 goes beyond simple POV warring. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! Rivertorch (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just fyi, I've taken it to ANI (where I mentioned this thread). They're at it again, and I'm not going to waste time edit warring with a troll. Rivertorch (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'll take a look, say my two cents, and move on. Have a great week, sorry you're having to deal with that load of .... (redacted). --j⚛e decker^talk 18:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, just to let you know, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is full of junk. I need your help to revert to a good version. Thanks, Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 18:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was out, it looks like that's been addressed. Sorry I wasn't able to help! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

afc g13

To my surprise, I find myself declining some of your g13s. In particular 2 are acceptable as they stand, & others probably. I don't think such articles should be considered as abandoned, just as our reviewer's failure to accept them.

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R. Ross Holloway meets WP:PROF as it stands-- named chair at major university, multiple major prizes, honorary doctorates, a festschrift which is a reliable secondary source. It should have been accepted, I've accepted it. Needs a quick check for copypaste, but if there is he is notable enough that I will stubbify it. In the meantime I rewrote anything that sounded awkward.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bird in hand winery seems to have sources for notability and I see it as factual not promotional. I've accepted it-- It's like most of our other winery articles.

Somewhat more debatably, not yet ideal, but still acceptable:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adegaon is minimal, but it is sufficient information for a village stub it was deleted by another admin, recreated by another ed, and I added to it a little. Someone else can do the infobox. It's the sort of formatting I leave to others. Whether or not the decision to accept such stubs was a good one, that has been the consensus.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/British Association of Removers is like other articles on national trade associations: it needs some cutting, but it is not unduly promotional. I have done some editing , but need a to do more & checks the references before I accept it
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Independent Appeal (Newspaper) is a problem. We usually do accept newspapers, tho we need some verification, even without true secondary sources for notability. I'm going to see what I can find, and then accept it .

In the meantime, someone asked me for a refund, and there is promise, so I gave it. First one. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

First, have at, for any or all of those articles. Here's my comments on them individually.

With respect to Adegaon, I wasn't convinced the sources were reliable. That was probably wrong, but as there clearly are reliable sources elsewhere, I've added one, restored the AfC, you're welcome to approve/mainspace it with my complements.

You're surely right about the winery. No idea what I was thinking there. You've already main-spaced that, thanks.

We're in complete agreement that Independent Appeal is fine if it's got a source or something to verify it. That was my concern.

With respect to British Association of Removers, my gut reaction was, and is still that it needs more caution and perhaps additional rewriting. A lot of the material sounds to my ear like the organization talking about itself. I hear leading an article with an organization setting out toward "excellence in [their industry]" is promotional, ditto "publishes the leading magazine for the removals and storage industry" And... I've also gotten some whiffs of copyvios within the text, which I haven't been able to completely nail down, [3] has a sentence or so snippet from a paywalled article from BAR that that matches a sentence here. Anyway, that's my 2c, you are welcome to do whatever with the artilce you think is best, I wanted to present my concerns, but I have every belief you'll do the right thing.

More to say here in general, but it's late, and I'm tired. Thanks for your efforts, DGG. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Added: A final note before sleep R. Ross is a weird error indeed. Whereas the winery article I distinctly remember seeing, having in my head as promotional but not-quite G11, and (incorrectly) G13'ing, I seem to have hit R. Ross in the middle of working through a list of articles declined-as-blank, a list R. Ross was not on.

A little background, for the declined-as-blanks, I'd often pull up 5-12 at a time, one per tab, opening each in the editor looking for commented-out articles. In about 50 cases, I found articles never seen by reviewers due to comment errors. R. Ross was deleted by me right in the middle of that sort of process. But it wasn't declined as blank. I don't even have a list that that biography is on, not that I know of. My error was almost certainly having that open and thinking it was part of a set of declined-as-blanks I was looking through, not forgivable, of course, but it still mystifies me that I would have had a window to the R. Ross bio pulled up at all. Perhaps it will make more sense in the morning. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, R. Ross *had* been declined as blank, and was on my lists at the time. At least I know how it happened. Still not happy about it, but at least I'll be able to sleep being annoyed at myself rather than mystified. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 15:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 14:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Kristen DiAngelo Article

Hi Joe,

It took me a while to figure out how to write you. I am learning to work this site a bit at a time. I have added some references to the article and I know it is a bit different for an article about a prostitute or a courtesan to be a positive one. However, after directing American Courtesans I realized how little of the truth ever gets out. The validating her history with press was a bit tricky, but I am hoping this new submission is enough to verify quite a bit of the information that is in the article.

I agree that submitting an article about the film will be easier and I will do that next, but the film has only even been around a short time, but after spending time with these women I began to realize that there are a few of them that are very well know in this underworld, Kristen being one of them. She has worked as a sex worker for the better part of 36 years. Without her this project would have never gotten off the ground. These women trusted her implicitly. In fact, they trusted her so much they agreed to fly, take trains, etc... and interview on camera, some of them never even meeting her before. In the underground of the sex world, her name carries a lot of clout.

I know presenting a positive or healthy side to this profession, flies in the face of tradition, but someone needs to start somewhere. There was a day when a positive and enlightening article had never been written about a gay person or a black person as well. So, this may take a while, but I will persist. This is one of the few countries in the world where prostitution is illegal, and it also has one of the highest murder rates of sex workers as well. I believe it's time we talk about that in a factual manner so that the public sees both sides. Let me know what I could do to make this better if you could or if I simply need to find more evidence backing her life. I do appreciate you helping and giving me feedback, it has been helpful, and please do let me know if there is anything else that would help.

Jjohnson jj77 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! First, yeah, Wikipedia can be as difficult place to learn to navigate, both in terms of figuring out where "all the things" are, but also in terms of working out the basic meaning behind all our policies and guidelines. It's can be more than a bit Kafka-esque for new editors, frustrating is too kind a word.

Fundamentally, we're out here to build articles that are as neutral and verifiable as possible, and the use of third-party sources that have been through some sort of editorial process (usually more in the way of newspapers and magazines, not so often blogs, etc.) helps us do that among other things. It's not simply a matter of wanting us to believe a piece of information, it's a matter of wanting to tell our readers where the information came from and why they should feel that it's accurate--and neither a hagiography nor an attack piece.

It's hard to get that sort of underlying coverage for sex workers in the general sense, I know, because of the social and sometimes legal implications of the work. There are a few examples I can think of where we have found that level of coverage in reliable sources, (e.g., Cheryl Cohen-Greene, if I recall correctly), but it's rarer. Unfortunately, our coverage is really going to have to follow, rather than lead, coverage in other kinds of sources because of the way we work. Of the sources in your draft, I think Fox News, and the film festivals would have some weight with the next reviewer, but many of the sources (blogs, etc.) are going to be an issue. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Zip Time Tracker Article

Hi,

You reviewed my posting about two months ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zip_Time_Tracker) but did not accept it as you questioned the notability of the article. That is all good and fine, I just don't understand how my posting differs from this other posting, for example on the same topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talygen%28software%29 which also only has one reference.

I am wondering if I am making the wrong type of article? Thank you,

Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiek22 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have accepted Talygen, either. I'll look and see if it's appropriate to start a deletion discussion on Talygen. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is my other, usual answer to this question....)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the wrong type of article?", the main thing we need for a subject to be here is a level of reliable, third-party sources about the subject, other than that, with few exceptions, we're glad for a wide variety of types of articles. Our "notability" policies simply require a couple of third-party reliable sources so that the article can really be written in a neutral and verifiable manner, we're trying to avoid (even though we sometimes fail) to become a place that people just use to advertise their products or attack other people. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not just delete

Joe - Why arn't you just deleting these yourself?--v/r - TP 18:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tom, first, thanks, I've been seeing you've been catching a lot of these. Largely a combination of habit (measure twice, cut once, is my usual thinking for speedies), and trying not to overly annoy DGG, who has been looking through these for things to salvage. Of course, this has a substantial effect on other admins like yourself having to dig through 'em too. I'm out the door for some errands, but I'll give this a thought while I'm gone. Thanks for the note, --j⚛e decker^talk 18:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's fine for me. I've been spot checking you on each batch and then deleting the whole thing with batch delete. Restores are cheap. I was just curious.--v/r - TP 18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I think that's probably a good balance. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation to Wikisource articles

You mentioned that you could imagine cases where a link to a Wikisource might be appropriate within a disambiguation page. Could you provide an example of that in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Rfc on disambiguation to Wikisource articles. Unless you just mean Wiktionary, which is pretty standard dab fare. I have scratched my head for an example other than Wiktionary, and haven't come up with one. See also my comments there. --Bejnar (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 01:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 16:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions about declined article request

Several weeks ago my suggested article on the Oregon Medical Board was rejected because it included copyrighted information from http://www.oregonhwi.org/resources/links.shtml. I don't understand how that could be the case. The information on that page is only a reference to the Oregon Medical Board. The Oregon Medical Board is established as a State agency under Oregon Law.

Any help you can provide in getting the article created would be greatly appreciated.

Carolabrandt (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the question, but I think you're saying "it's from a state agency, how can it be copyrighted?" Is that the question? The answer is that yes, many state publications are copyrighted, and textual works in the United States are generally, with the exception of the US Federal Government, typically copyrighted. While it's not required to assert a copyright to hold it under United States law, the page you link clearly does assert such a copyright at the bottom. If the question is, "why is the law that way?", well, that you'd have to ask a representative of the Oregon legislature, this agency, or both.

If the question instead is, "Are you sure this got copied from somewhere?", well, yeah. Just pulling a random dozen-word or so quote from the deleted article:

  responsible for the scope of practice of Emergency Medical Services Providers and for the requirements and duties of Emergency Medical Services supervising physicians

and googling it, I find at [4], the text:

  responsible for the scope of practice of Emergency Medical Services Providers, and for the requirements and duties of EMS supervising physicians.

Of course, some of that is likely (in fact I've been assuming that it is) OMB boilerplate and used on multiple OMB pages, but that doesn't make it any of this text less copyrighted.

The simplest way to get an article created on the topic is to write one, from a neutral point of view, based on reliable, third-party sources, using only your own words. Let me know if I can explain further. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lazada Indonesia

Hello Joe Decker. I am just letting you know that I deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lazada Indonesia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  14:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No concerns. My first read through it I mostly read the sections on the free shipping and return policies, which aren't that article's best moment. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your recent VE bug reports; thanks so much! :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, best of luck with the deployment! ( I'll be out of town for the big event.) --j⚛e decker^talk 16:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Article on Hamboards

Hi

Sorry, i missed getting back to this before it was deleted. I had new information to add which brings up the relevance of the article

Can you restore the draft?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespeakerguy (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! It's restored. One quick thing I noticed, urethane goes to a disambiguation page and you might want to fix that, I think the bigger issue is that the previous reviewer had some concerns about promotionally as well. I look forward to seeing your improvements, and have a great day! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

François Louis Castelnaux DARRAC 1775-1862

Dear Joe,

How can I delete a picture in my article ? Boksfaller (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To remove an image from your article, simply remove the File tag that refers to it. So, to remove the first image in your article, edit that article, and remove the text that says:

   [[File:MR. DARRAC'S PATENT.png|thumb]]

That should do it! --j⚛e decker^talk 20:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 00:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WT:Articles for creation/Emine SARI

Hi Joe, could you please check out my article again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Emine_SARIWikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Emine_SARI ?! I've redone the article as you talked, I hope you can accept now. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakproduction (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was deleted as being overly promotional before I had a chance to look myself. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Australian roads)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Australian roads). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 02:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

we're involved in O'Shaughnessy Dam (California)?

We cannot review the GA for that article, right? Does discussing on the Talk page count? I haven't edited the article in months, though. What's the right thing to do? —hike395 (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I don't know precisely how carefully the GA folks follow that, so my guess shouldn't be considered definitive, but I think if it were largely the same article there'd still be some sense of involvement, if it was essentially a complete rewrite since you'd changed something (particularly if your changes were minor), I wouldn't think it would be a big deal. When I'm back I'll take a look at what I've done--I have done one GA review (for Wilhelm Cauer), I don't think I've substantially done any work on the article, I'd need to think a little bit about whether I felt competent to do so. For yourself, I wish I could give a definite answer about yourself, but a straightforward question at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations might be in order. I should be back, awake, and non-exhausted tomorrow or the next day.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 02:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 02:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC speedies

Joe, please stop for the night. I We can't keep up with you. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm pretty much done through Tuesday, I'm leaving tomorrow to teach a photo workshop. Have a great week! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

btw, some of the ones rejected as duplicates would have made adequate, and once in a while, even necessary, redirects. (eg, Grande Sports Academy, Franklin L. Burns School of Real Estate and Construction Management, and especially Denton Arthur Cooley I'm not at all sure of the best way to deal with these--whether to delete them , and then make the redirect, or to change them to a redirect and accept them. I've done it both ways. Some of them were deleted before I checked them, (yes, I at least spot check all deleted AfCs when I can, from the deletion log) and it seems that at least some of our colleagues among the admins delete too fast to check things like that, -- as I found out long ago, the careful people need to compensate for other people's deficiencies. It is very hard to actually check a large number of deleted article--try it. There should be some way that doesn't take 4 steps per article to see it in readable form. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm done with this process, it's not really working for me. If you and other folks can figure out how to reduce the backlog of stale AfC problems, or at least get rid of the very serious number of copyright, advertising, and libel/slander that's going to be left on the encyclopedia in some other way, I would be glad, but honestly, I don't see how it is possible. I believe that the current path is essentially a failed one, but I would be genuinely delighted to be proven wrong.

At some point in the future, (barring being proven wrong), I will again attempt to build support for bot-based deletion of stale AfC drafts. I continue to believe that the weight of serious problems in that backlog enormously exceeds the value of the good material there (although, as I cheerfully admit, there is some), and that the cost to manual sorting is too high. I know this is very far from your view, but I appreciate you trying to work with me despite our differences. With greatest respect, --j⚛e decker^talk 16:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Jones Woodford

Ralph Jones Woodford[edit]Nice work, any reason you're still using AfC? You should be able to create articles directly now, FYI. Have a great week! Also, you'll probably want to go add categories to that article now.... again, thanks!

Thanks Joe. It was really because this kind of biog article is outside my normal area, which is shipping (indeed, I only wrote it after researching the ship Woodford, and consequently reading about the Governor - and then being surprised that there was not already an article). The article needs a good bit of work from someone with access to better sources - I was going to try it on the Trinidad Wikiproject, but their talk page doesn't look very active. But when it's gone live I'll probably do that. It needs, in particular a much fuller section on his influence over social developments - class, colour, mores etc. But the best modern meterial I found online is from a well-respected Trinidad historian, but only published in his blog, so not really RS. And to cap it all is a doubt as to whether his middle name was Jones or James - I now think probably James. But let's see. Davidships (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think it's a good start, and perhaps it'll help someone who does have access to better sources to work on it. In general we mostly are doing basic triage at AfC, and don't manage to do nearly as much improvement ourselves as we'd like -- just too many articles! Anyway, thanks for the contributions! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Looks DOA. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please Review

Hi Joe,

I updated the page with reliable secondary sources - please review and let me know if that's sufficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ben_Schwartz Have a great weekend.

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmulka11 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

After your review of [[5]] I add some references. I ask some information on IRC channel of help wikipedia in order to insert correct references. Thank you

Hi, thanks! If I can't take a look today, someone should be able to soon. Thanks for your patience. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).

I updated all of the references and added the template at the end, but I keep getting the above Cite error message! Can you help me? Thank you!!!

What article? --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

SCDM/Society for clinical data management

Hi Joe!

I am Giulia from SCDM. Thank you for taking the time to review my article. Your comment was that the article contains copyrighted text, and I was wondering if you could point out the 'incriminated' bits. I have authored most of the content on the SCDM website, which is not copyrighted (the only copyrighted content there is the GCDMP), and I believe I used the ref tags wherever was needed, so your help would be much appreciated.

Thank you for your time!

Giulia

Sure thing: I've placed a duplicate detector report at User:Joe Decker/CV23. I'd also note that some of the text is quite non-encyclopedic. Really, it's nearly impossilble for text that is approprriate for a corporate about us page or the like to *also* be neutral in both word and due weight--the goals of the writing are so very different. Please also read WP:PSCOI, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Just not my area of expertise. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 15:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elly Tanaka.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! RadioFan (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Elly Tanaka, 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you! :)

Hi Joe, thanks for the helpful tips. Can you, please, check the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Secret_Society_of_Happy_People&action=submit) that I updated and see if its OK now? Thanks again, Ruzhica Ruzhica (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the yummy strawberries. I'm a little confused though, because from the article history [6], it looks like the draft hasn't been changed since I declined it. Did you edit a different copy? In any case, add the {{subst:submit}} tag to the article once you'd like it to be reviewed again, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Undelete Darwin the IKEA monkey?

Hello, Joe.

I notice you closed the AfD on that monkey in a coat. At the time, I'd have agreed, it was just a silly story that went a bit viral.

But there's since been a custody battle, and quite a bit of coverage. This from May and this from June for instance. Googling "darwin monkey" gets me absolutely nothing about Charles or his theory (at least not on the first page of results).

So I think the objections about no lasting significance are no longer valid. If you agree, an undeletion would be easier than starting from scratch.

Thanks for considering. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:InedibleHulk/Ikea Monkey -- looking at Google News Archives, there's enough there that I think you have a good case, I just suspect the article will have a better chance of being reseen clearly if it's improved with the new sources before being mainspaced. Sound good? --j⚛e decker^talk 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Brian Kossoff

Hello--I thought that I edited the article on Brian Kosoff to meet your suggestions, but Cindy Ashton-Nelson says that I have instead somehow removed the article from the queue. She states " A review of the submission for an article about Brian Kosoff, shows that you removed content that essentially removed it from the review queue. See this link for details <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2FBrian_Kosoff&diff=563317860&oldid=562428969>.

I would recommend that you revert your deletion, then work with the editors who have declined your submission." That's why I am writing--in looking at her link, I am taken to a part of Wikipedia I have not seen before, and there is not a clear path to "revert my deletion"--and I am not cetain what that means (I'll email her, also, to see if she can explain)? Could you please simply review my edited article and see whether it meets your standard? I would be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriciaAnnMora (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The issue was that you need the "yellow box" for reviewers to find your submission, you can add one yourself in the future by adding {{subst:submit}} to the page. I've done that for you in this case, and I'm guessing that another reviewer will be along in the next few hours to give it a lookover. I'm sorry I can't get to it right this moment. Thanks for your contributions! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the new draft was decliend by User:RadioFan. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Abhay Chautala

I see you removed a copyvio template from this page on the grounds that the source was licensed under the GFDL. Wikipedia does not actually accept GFDL-only content from non-Wikimedia sites unless it was added before 1 November 2008 (see Wikipedia:Licensing update), so this was actually a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 18:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was dumb on my part. You're right, of course. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joe

My article on One crazy ride has been rejected twice now. I have incorporated all the changes required by you upon first rejection.

Could you please be more specific in the kind of changes needed so this article can make it up to your requirements.

Regards Teena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkhanna25 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Anne was the most recent reviewer, and you could ask her directly, but I can understand her concern well enough. It is great that you've begun to learn how to add references, unfortunately, they are one of the most complex areas of our encyclopedia. Anne explains the key issue I'm seeing (perhaps not the only one, but the key one she mentions) with these words: "Some references have been found, but not properly added. You will need to specify the title of each article, the date and/or issue of the publication in which it can be found, who wrote it if possible, and, if it's on line, the link address (URL)." You have said to some extent where you got the information, and that's half the battle, but you haven't given us in most of those references enough information that we could, pragmatically speaking, go and verify the information ourselves if we had access to the resources.

In general, for a magazine story or web site story, what you're going to need to include is the work (e.g,. "The Deccan Herald", the title (the name of the individual story), the date the story was published (very important for print works in particular). For paper sources I'd also usually require a page number. Above this, a URL to the story if it's on-line would be incredibly helpful.

I do realize our referencing tools are difficult. The easiest way to start learning how to make references on Wikipedia is to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which includes a nice video showing how to use the RefToolbar, which makes working with references a whole lot easier. Please note that that technique only works with "Edit Source" right now, as we are transitioning between ways of editing articles. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Prose

I am sorry but could you explain what you mean by the list in Joe "Tiger" Patrick II should be written in Prose? After reading about what prose is I don't understand how to apply it here. Do you mean the active voice, avoiding nominalizations, parallel ideas and emphatic at the end? Just want to confirm. I tried to make it in the present without wiki having a future voice ie: not will be instead using plans to (or something to that effect). Would this be considered the passive voice? TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 19:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, indeed. There's a section about the tapestry that's really more of a bullet list than sentences. I wasn't making a comment about active/passive voice, just saying that lists like that tend to have a somewhat promotional flavor, whereas putting the key facts into paragraph form may read a bit more neutrally. Sorry for any confusion! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Gil Blank

Dear Joe, Thank you for reviewing my article "Gil Blank". You've mentioned that some more reliable sources are needed, more than IMBS and Youtube. Can I relay on Wikipedia itself. If the answer is yes, the movie itself (Hunting Elephants) is well described both on the English and Hebrew Version on Wikipedia. Gil Blank's name appears in both version as the main star. While huge actors such as Patrick Stewart ("Star Trek", "X-man")and Sasson Gabai ("The Band's Visit") and many other major actors were cast to the movie as a co-stars , Gil Blank is the main star. Gil Blank's photo appears on the movie Banner, movies Trailer, newspapers article and etc... it has huge reliable reference. By The way' Gil Blank article appears in the Hebrew Wikipedia Version גיל בלנק.

I hope, you could help me to make Gil Blank notable at the English version as well.

Many thanks,

Eyaleck (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. In particular, a sense that third-party, arm's length sources -- generally newspaper/magazine/book sorts of sources, is a key part of our basic policy on whether or not we have a biographical article on a person. WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is, and I realize this is ironic, not considered a reliable source. WP:IRS may help you understand our view of sources a bit better. What you're generally looking for are newspaper articles, magazine articles, and/or book references. Once the article has those references, and what is said in the article is actually based on those sources, we'll have little problem with the article, I'm sure. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 13:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benjamin Charles Watson

Of course the article contains copyrighted work, but I referenced (sourced) everything in the article. What specific copyrighted work was not referenced (sourced) that caused you to decline my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmeiers (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's in part a copy of the biography at IMDB. (I'm sorry the message left in the deletion log doesn't specify that, I've asked for our tools to include this information in the automated messages left on talk pages such as your own, but it hasn't been fixed yet.) --j⚛e decker^talk 13:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013

posted by Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-Submit

Hello Mr. Decker,

I have revised the article and gotten rid of any copyrighted material. How do I resubmit it? Thank you.

GraceCarter (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ms. Carter,

It's very simple, just add the following text (using the source editor)...

{{subst:submit}}

...and it should be re-reviewed shortly. I'd do it myself for you, but if I did, the notifications about the review would come to me instead of you, which wouldn't help. Hope that helps! (PS: You're welcome to call me Joe if you wish.) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Crystal Lake Recreation Area

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Crystal Lake Recreation Area. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for new task for null bot.

Hey Joe, Template:AFC submission/declined is set up to now categorize all declined submissions that haven't been edited at all in at least six months. Since this categorization is done via template, it is victim to the issue that your bot is designed to help work around. If you could add a task to your bot that null edits all Category:Declined AfC submissions that haven't been edited in more than six months and aren't already in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the next day or so, thanks.  :) This is a much larger task than any previously approved NB task, and I doubt anything that large would be approved as a daily task. Less often, perhaps, or if I can get to the declined submissions in a sensible order through some other method. It may be that this is best handled as a database query rather than through the broken cat mechanism. Maybe make a list of the oldest 1000 or so every day, or every week, or something. In any case, I'll take a look soon. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Can you give me context on who is going to use this? Is this to make the proposed G13 bot work better? If so, it'd be better to have that bot do the database searching directly. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Once the initial 80k page backlog is done, once a week would be fine. Hastuer's bot proposal "may" use the category, but my purpose is to populate the list to fill up the category to see how big the backlog is and I've been poking at it and using User:Technical_13/Userboxes/G13 to keep track (seen below and supports up to 999,999 in the category and goes green if < 150 pagesincat and shows a sun when 0). Technical 13 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

id1Joe Decker is
evaluating CSD:G13
eligible AfC draftsid2

Okay. If the goal is to figure out the backlog (a worthy goal!), can we estimate it closely enough via a database search for articles in Declined AfC Submissions whose last edit was more than 6 months old? Doing that as a database search -- I can't quite do it as CatScan or CatScan2 -- would produce the answer several orders of magnitude more quickly. Really, doing an API purge on multiple machines per article is a lot of back and forth. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but really, if we take the time to do this right here it'll save us time at BRFA. I'm kind of surprised that the edits to the declined template didn't propagate via the job queue, too--but the job queue is empty. This is confusing me a bit, and tempting me to try an experiment. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Job queue is not empty. It is overloaded, bugged out, and there is a ticket in bugzilla:9518 (I think). Part of getting them all into the category is that the categorization section of the template also sorts them by age as in the largest number of weeks since Jan 1st, 2000 goes to the end. Technical 13 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought it was empty because of [7]. I'll check out 9518. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 12:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony Anthony (evangelist)

Hi, you are shown as the deleting editor for this page from 19 March 2012. In the last week or two there has been a fair amount of coverage relating to the subject - an independent inquiry has concluded that much of his autobiography is false, his publisher has pulled his books, and the organisation he founded is being closed down. All this, IMO, makes him notable. I'm happy to start a new article, but I believe I should contact you first. Is undeletion an option? I don't know what happened before but I think there are enough WP:RS to make sure that WP:BLP isn't violated. SmilingFace (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Joe, as you haven't responded and may be away, I've re-created the article from scratch. Hope this was OK.SmilingFace (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sorry I missed this--I've had some busy happening in real life. If you've got new sourcing, there should be no inherent problem with recreating it, the previous deletion discussion wouldn't apply. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've included plenty of refs from reliable sources. Looking at the deletion discussions, it appears that the previous article(s) was a puff piece that got deleted because none of the subject's claims could be verified - and these claims have now been debunked! There must be a lesson there. Take a quick look at the new article if you have a moment. I just hope it doesn't start an edit war. A bot has put a previous article deleted tag on the talk page - what's the score with removing that? SmilingFace (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

CatScan

Dear Joe: I have just realized that I never did thank you for introducing me me CatScan, a very useful tool which I have been using every day since. So, thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Anne, you're quite welcome! It's probably one of the tools I've ended up using the most in my own gnoming over the years, too. --j⚛e decker^talk 12:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just a note of thanks for the way you handled the Björn Borg professionally known as Bjorn Borg type leads a few months back. It recently went to a full RfC, shortcut WP:TENNISNAMES2. And the 100 leads are all now gone, through the work of several editors, and none of them have edit-warred back in counter RfC result. Enjoy the baklava. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Peace across the tennis lands, nothing could make me happier. Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 12:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Null bot: perhaps a request page?

I don't know if this has come up before, but the null editor bot should have a page on which users/admins could request to have null-edited all transclusions of a particular template, all pages in a particular category, or all pages linked from a certain page. It would make certain maintenance tasks like WP:CFDWM easier. Unless this has previously been shot down, please consider this request. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Train2104: I'll put that on my list of ideas to look into. I'm probably not going to be able to do so immediately, but it's easy to see where it could be very helpful, and it wouldn't be hard to put in some limits for how large of a job it will handle automagically, which I think would allay any concerns that the relevant BRFA might encounter. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luigi di Bella

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luigi di Bella. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done --j⚛e decker^talk 01:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #70

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Discussions
  • Request for comment on Property proposal organisation reform to a more Model
  • Request for comment on VCards for Wikivoyage
  • Requests for bot approval has many requests that need further discussion!
  • Many property proposals still need input!
• Events/Press
  • Wikimania continues! If you are around make sure you come and say Hi!
  • Wikidata meetup in the chapters village on Saturday at 1 PM at Wikimania.
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Following numerous discussions we are happy to present the new version of the proposal that would lead to Wikidata supporting structured data for the Wiktionaries.
  • There are now only an estimated 1,000,000 articles remaining with inter language links, down from the previous 26,000,000!
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: LAU (local administrative unit), Sikart (identifier in SIKART), symptoms (the possible symptoms of a medical condition)
  • Frequently used for cities and other places, P17 ("country") indicates the sovereign state an item relates to. There now at least 100 items for most present day sovereign states. Leading is China (Q148) with 607,817 items, followed by Iran (!794) with 105,875 items and the United States of America (Q30) with 99,243 items. China rose from just 5266 items a month ago.
• Development
  • Changeops implemented for all Api modules
  • All Api modules now have better auto comments and custom summaries
  • Work on claim ordering started
  • Work on refactoring Api Tests
  • Bug Fixes!!
• Open Tasks for You
  • Add some data about Hong Kong and related things. Denny promises nice visualizations ;-)
  • Help fix formatting and value issues for a property.
  • Respond to a "Request for Comment".
  • Hack on one of these.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done, already closed. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Loder

Hi Joe,

Thank you for editing the Kellie Loder article. Because of your involvement with the article, I thought that you should be notified of the article's FAC. Any comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Joe Decker! You're receiving The AFC Barnstar because you reviewed 239 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks :) --j⚛e decker^talk 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done, incivility about civility is irony. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My article on Kristen DiAngelo

Hi Joe,

I've been working on the wikipedia entry for Kristen DiAngelo and was waiting to get better sources. There have been a few interviews with her lately and I wanted to see if you think these rise to the type of media you are looking for to verify the article.

a) Kristen was just on the Adam Corolla show, his podcast is most downloaded podcast in the world right now and he both speaks with her about her occupation and announces her as an activist... http://adamcarolla.com/kristen-diangelo-and-jo-koy/

b) Danny Miller from MSN.com did an interview with her for their entertainment section called Hit List http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/post--interview-kristin-diangelo-speaks-out-for-working-girls-in-american-courtesans

c) The Suicide Girls reporter Fred Topel did an interview with her: http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/2926/Kristen-DiAngelo/

d)Bob Adelman from MrMedia.com did a podcast interview with Kristen: http://www.mrmedia.com/2013/07/american-courtesan-documentary-secret-life-of-an-escort-video/#.UgfuR7zwM7A

e)A film trade publication: http://www.ai-ap.com/publications/article/7268/directors-chair-kristen-diangelo-on-the-sex-trad.html written by David Schonauer

f)A podcast with Jacob ONeill for Abnormal Entertainment: http://abnormalentertainment.blogspot.com/2013/07/just-asking-kristen-diangelo-about-sex.html

g) An interview with Pearl Snap Discount a film site: http://pearlsnapdiscount.com/2013/07/13/american-courtesans-interview-with-executive-producer-kristen-diangelo/

h) Jordan Riefe from Blouin art an online magazine did an interview with Kristen http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/929413/qa-kristen-diangelo-on-the-sex-trade-in-american-courtesans - which was re-posted by Time Warner http://features.rr.com/article/0e9lbXfbJ4f9T?q=Time+Warner+Inc.

I know this is a lot, and there is most likely more. But I didn't want to incorporate the info into the article and then you would have to search for it. So if you can guide me a bit and let me know what is useful and what is not, I won't waste your time putting it all in. She has been doing quite a few interviews and I believe she will be on another radio show next week, but I figured we could start here. Thank you for your time Joe, I really appreciate it. I am going to begin a page on the film but I'm already so far into this one and I wanted to finish it first. Thanks, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjohnson jj77 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I'd missed this, I've been busy dealing with work. I'll try and take a look tonight (next six hours). --j⚛e decker^talk 01:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you may still have some trouble, but I can give you some guidance. As I sort through these, the notability questions (under our cryptic policies) come down to two questions: How editorially sound is the publication (MSN probably good, something at blogspot probably not), and is the article really written at an arm's length. Most of the articles you've listed are interviews, and while there's not unanimity on this point, most editors at Wikipedia don't consider interviews to necessary meet this criterion. I'd still toss in the MSN one, however, it does give some very real sign of attention from a source that probably has an editor (who does something) distinct from the author themselves. Sorry I can't give more hope! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

With all the women who work and have worked in American, it is odd that there are only 2 women listed as American Courtesans. It would seem in an Encyclopedia that there would be more. It's like saying there were only 2 notable authors in history or 2 notable of anything. Do you think that the lack of historical and current information is due to repression of this sub-sector of society? Lack of talking about it maybe? It's the only thing I can think of because it's as if these women didn't exist and don't. That is until their killed by some crazed person, and then the crazed person gets a story and they are a bi-line. So, what can I do to change this? Can I take out what isn't verified in the article and then resubmit a short article that meets the standard somehow how? Or is there a way to start by listing her under American Courtesans? I sort of feel we at least met that standard, if nothing else by the longevity of her website and the media that is out there. Let me know. Thanks and I do appreciate you helping me with this. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjohnson jj77 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry I'd missed this.

I would have thought there'd be more famous courtesans myself, it's possible that some are listed under different related categories--it would not surprise me if there was some inconsistency in the usage of Category:American courtesans vs. Category:American prostitutes and so on. You could take a look at what some of the people listed at List of prostitutes and courtesans are categorized with.

There's certainly less information about (if I may generalize) biographical information for living people anywhere in a sex-related industry, part of it I suspect is directly societal, part of it is that, where someone's sex work might be illegal, there's a strong impetus to keep hidden. It may also be that some of the usual places we look for reliably published information (e.g., Google Books) are short on coverage of sex work, which would be another form of social censorship.

It's always possible (and desirable) to remove unverified information from biographies, [[WP:V}verifiability]] is a kind of core idea here, although we often do only a so-so job of it. But people tend to be pretty much sticklers for WP:BASIC, and I'd hate to see you put in more work and then have someone else come along and delete it--there are literally thousands of admins here. On the other hand, it's possible that in resubmitting it, someone else would find another source that would push the article over the bar. I wasn't able to, but there are certainly people smarter than myself.

I don't know if any of this is helpful, but I hope something is! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep looking for more sources. BTW, she is on the list for American Prostitutes. So you have her there, but even out of those, none are positive and most aren't alive. So, I will keep working on this. Thanks for helping and if you have any ideas just let me know.