User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8


Herra Nur Indah's AfD

Ah, good old BlueMario. Can't create a notable article for his life. Could you add Herra Nur Indah to Indah's AfD as they are both alike. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hanna's, you mean? Sure thing, I don't see any sourcing there either. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yea, Hanna Bahagiana. Gad zooks. I can't even get a name right. Bgwhite (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
*laughs* No worries. Have a great week! --j⚛e deckertalk 20:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Mahmoud Buheiri

Al-Andalusi answered your question at User_talk:Bless_sins#Mohamed_Mahmoud_Buheiri.Bless sins (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful, and very much appreciated. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Joe Decker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lil eazy-e

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Lil eazy-e has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced biography of a rapper of uncertain notability; possibly redirect to Eazy-E, his father.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks a lot! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! --j⚛e deckertalk 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KevJumba videography, Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I missed this. Looks like that discussion has pretty much achieved consensus. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Many thanks for super-speedy and useful help.Jimi 66 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Dru of Id#Autopatrolled

Thanks for noticing! On July 3 (statehood day) I did the three missing senators; July 4 and since, so far I've done 24 of the missing 63 representatives, from most recently taking/returned to office up. I can't think of any negative impact of being autopatrolled, but if I want it removed, I'll let you know. My focus on interpreting election results (see Julie Ellsworth) slows things, but notable firsts are the 'diamond in the rough'. Online records only go back so far, so I've ordered the Idaho bluebook,[1] as my computer went on pdf-strike when Adobe 9.5.0 failed to update properly, and attempts correction every few hours. Dru of Id (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Bummer about the Acrobat breakage, though.... --j⚛e deckertalk 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Illinois Family Institute

Thank you for your additional edits to the Illinois Family Institute article! I just wanted to let you know that I have started a discussion on the Talk:Illinois Family Institute page that relates to one of your edits. If you could drop by and respond, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback you can offer. Thanks again! Windchaser (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'm surprised we hadn't had an article on them yet, thanks for the great work! I've commented over at the Talk page on the one question you raised there, roughly speaking, I think you had it right. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e deckertalk 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Kile Glover

Joe, can you please see this discussion regarding an edit request I made. Only one of the two edits I requested was completed. Thanks. -- (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note there, I agree with your change, but I'm going to give folks an hour or two to push back as this if they're going to. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 16:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done --j⚛e deckertalk 18:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protections

Hi, please could you explain to me how to correctly carry out semi-auto clerking at WP:RPP? Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. There seems to be a general consensus in favor of the behavior of Rami_R's semi-auto-clerking script, just insert this in your appropriate startup Javascript (e.g., User:Joe Decker:vector.js)
It seemed a bit mysterious to me at first: It doesn't immediately move recently addressed requests, and so forth, but that seems to be a desired effect, presumably so that folks would have a chance to respond as things happen. It's pretty easy to use once you get it loaded, just start editing WP:RFPP, press the clerking item that will have appeared in the Toolbox near the bottom of the left sidebar, and (after checking it hasn't mucked everything up badly) save the results. Let me know if you have any trouble. Thanks for offering to lend a hand! --j⚛e deckertalk 16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh look, there's documentation even! User:Rami_R/rfppClerk --j⚛e deckertalk 16:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I'll try to get that set up now. Cheers,--Chip123456 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Another Q! How long should requests stay in the fullled/denied requests for?--Chip123456 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just use that script's defaults, and I think a lot of folks are pretty "used to" that -- 6 hour wait after a request is marked fulfilled before it's moved there, 12 hours after it's moved there until it's removed entirely. I wouldn't mess at all with the latter, but if you felt 6 hours (between fulfillment and when it got moved) was too long, you might open up a discussion at WT:RFPP -- to be honest, I'm relatively new here at working RFPP as an admin, and there are certainly a lot of folks who work this queue who've had a lot more experience with the process and what works best. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Good luck with your admin tasks there as an 'RPP newbie'!--Chip123456 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much! And thank you for wanting to help out here! By the way, (and you may already be doing this), there are other ways to help out here. I've often seen comments from folks when I look at a request that help me evaluate what's going on in a situation--noting, say, that a edit war has only autoconfirmed users so a semi won't work, that sort of thing. It's not that I won't double-check that, but I do often find that such comments help speed up the process I go through of evaluating what's going on. Again, thank you! --j⚛e deckertalk 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No problem! Ok, I will do that when I see an oppurtunity.....I've made a couple before using the odd {{NAO}} here and there. Thanks for your help and I hope to bump into you again in the future!--Chip123456 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Kile Glover - one more edit issue

Joe, thanks so much for taking care of the stepson issue on Usher. I'm also writing because there's a separate edit request for the article here. Rivertorch said he wants someone else to make the decision. So can you make the decision on it? Thanks for your help. -- (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind, Joe. After reading my reply, Rivertorch decided to make the change. Have a great weekend. -- (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry I'd missed this until now. Cheers! --j⚛e deckertalk 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. 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) 12:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor Retention/Retain new editors

If its OK with you I'm gonna put a copy of your suggestion [[2]] over at The team page. Can I suggest you join? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally okay with me. I'd be glad to join, I really support the effort, but I'm not sure I'll be the most thoughtful contributor, there are lots of folks doing a lot of really great work there, who've thought about the problem a lot longer than I have. Still, perhaps I can say something constructive now and again. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi Joe Decker! Yes, I'd like to have my user page protected. I didn't know it was possible for Wikipedians but now that I do, I won't refuse it. I think a semi-protection is enough. Thanks, Sofffie7 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you've already done it! Thank you :-) --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Being a pest....again!

Hi, sorry to bother you. I'm just wondering, with RPP are you allowed to make non-ad closures, like at PERM's?--Chip123456 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No bother at all, Chip! I've tried to look through the archives on this, and haven't found a firm consensus. I believe that I've seen User:Armbrust, who I believe is a non-admin, do at least a few crystal-clear closures-as-denied, he might be able to provide some useful guidance in practice on this question, I have a fair bit of trust for his NAC work at RFPP and elsewhere. I personally would have no trouble with NAC closures of crystal-clear denieds or "already dones", but I don't feel that I can speak for community consensus on this question.
And please continue to feel welcome to ask questions. I just may send you elsewhere if I'm not sure of the answer! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there! :) Non-admin closures at RFPP have not been discussed recently, but they have been at permissions, see here and the new discussion about it here. Hope that's of some help. :) Acalamari 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, JD. I will go slowly, and ensure that they are 'crystal clear' decline cases. Thanks Acalamari, I was dropped a note earlier that there was a discussion at PERMS. :).--Chip123456 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Acalamari, thanks! I mostly haven't worked PERMS, but that certainly gives me an idea of what some of the more contentious issues might be here. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I've made a few NAC's today......I hope they're OK! :)--Chip123456 TalkContribs 14:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I see an issue or two, let me go through and look more carefully, please don't make any more closes until I've had a chance to come back here and discuss. Thanks for letting me know! --j⚛e deckertalk 15:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, please tell me, when you have looked through so I know where to improve, it's better than mucking things up!--Chip123456 TalkContribs 15:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Chip. I've reviewed the NAC declines, and ended up protecting three of them, and even one or two that I agree with are probably *potentially* contentious (because a lot of times these things are judgment calls), I'll get into the specifics in a minute. In any process, we tend to require that NACs be nearly absolutely uncontentuous, and that was not the case in even some of those I "upheld". I suspect the NAC declines at this point are going to prove a bad idea. I'm sorry that I've likely led you down the wrong path here, and I apologize for and take full responsiblity for that, but I really do think it's best right now if you stop declines.
I do appreciate your energy and enthusiasm, but it's best that you stop declines for the time. If you'd like to pursue other ways to help at RFPP, what I'd suggest is that you find a far more experienced RFPP admin (more experienced than myself at the page, that is) and discuss the matter with them, and start that process by having a discussion on the general topic at WT:RFPP. You may find that there's no support for the idea, or if there is, perhaps someone with more experience will be able to provide better coaching than I can provide at this time.
As a matter of information only, the biggest problem that I saw in the pattern of declines that I overturned was in cases of long-term patterns of vandalism. The precise amount of recent vandalism generally needs to be weighed in view of the longer-term history of that kind of vandalism, in view of when and if and for how long the article has been previously protected, and the specific nature of the kinds of vandalism involved. In one of the cases, the same sorts of vandalism had gone on for years, and recurred soon after protection was lifted, even a single recurrence at that point is worth considering for a new and longer protection period, as I did. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm quite able to effectively put words into all the factors I take into consideration here, I don't think it's as easy as I might have thought to write a completely objective guide to the process. This is why I feel that, if and only if there's consensus to allow NAC at WT:RFPP, a more experienced mentor for you would be of help. I am far from certain that there will be such a consensus, though--and it is certainly best if you ask at WT:RFPP. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
PS: I see there is such a discussion going on! Awesome, thanks! And if you ever want coaching on something I do have some experience with (e.g., I'm probably relatively clueful about AfD), please let me know. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for your response! I concur, and will stay away, for the time being, away from the NAC's and will just stick to the NAO's/Clerking. I would really like to take you up on that offer about AfD......although I've made 5 non-reverted non- ad closures there, It's not a place where I'm overly active. I'll show you ScottyWongs AfD tool which shows how I have commented there so you can see my delte/keep comments. My NAC's for this can be found on my talk. Again, Thanks!--Chip123456 TalkContribs 15:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Here you go.--Chip123456 TalkContribs 15:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Chip, just a quick note, I have not forgotten this, the last two days have been kinda crazy with cat-related stuff, but I will get back to talking with you about AfDs, etc. Thanks for your patience! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Central Region United Synagogue Youth (CRUSY)

Hello Joe. There are administrator notes at the top of Central Region of United Synagogue Youth (CRUSY) about whether the article should be deleted, redirected, or merged into United Synagogue Youth (USY). (CRUSY is one of USY's 17 regions. None of the other 16 have their own article.) The first admin note for some reason links to the USY talk page instead of the CRUSY talk page. Anyway, I started this discussion where the link led. I was hoping you could add your input and initiate a decision. Thanks! -- (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) 03:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi 76! Yeah, the {{mergeto}} template is intended to be used along with the {{mergefrom}} template, on the "source" of the proposed merge (CRUSY), the other on the "target" of the proposed merge (USY). Both templates end up pointing at the talk page of the target article. By having both templates point to the talk page of the target article, all the discussion gets handled together, rather than split across the two talk pages. I've added the appropriate mergefrom template, this may help draw the attention of other editors to the question. Any editor can place these and when there is sufficient consensus, either remove the templates (in the case of "leave it the way it is", or make the merge happen (by adding the material from the source to the target, and then making the source into a redirect via normal editing. (Deletion can't be completed this way, though, if folks decide it should still be deleted there it would have to still go through PROD or AfD.) You should be aware that it's very common for merge discussions to be move quite slowly.
The first question I'd ask, though, is do you think CRUSY is notable? That's usually a matter of whether you can find reliable, independent sources which provide in-depth coverage of the topic. If you can't find them (try things like Google News Archives and Google Books searches. Certainly try regular Google too, but the %age of sources that will end up being "reliable" from those is going to be much much smaller, so I always start with the other two searches. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Joe! To answer your question, based on my understanding and research, the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. United Synagogue Youth, the organization of which CRUSY and the 16 other regions are a part, is certainly notable because it is a major Jewish youth orgnization across the U.S. (and and in a few other countries). But each of its 17 individual regions, including CRUSY, simply implement the "parent" organization's (USY's) programs and processes for their own area. So, generally speaking, the 17 regions all do the same thing. Therefore, it would seem that none of the individual regions should have their own article. And none of them currently do, except for CRUSY. Also, United Synagogue Youth already includes a complete table which lists all 17 regions. I was hoping you could give your opinion in the discussion I started on the USY talk page. I'd rather have experts like yourself make the determination on what the correct and appropriate way to handle the CRUSY article is. Thanks! -- (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added a note there. I'm leaning in the redirect or merge area. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for your friendly and helpful assistance. You're a great admin. -- (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at Brambleberry of RiverClan's talk page.
Message added 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brambleberry of RiverClan MewTail 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong page?

Joe, I think you may want to copy your comment for User talk:Aldi77 to that editor's talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably, yeah; I'd simply answered where he'd left the "help me". Good point, thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Gawker a reliable source?

Hi Joe. A user cited Gawker in the Personal life section of Marissa Mayer (about her marriage). Does Wikipedia consider Gawker to be a reliable/credible source? Or is it a gossip blog that is not allowed to be cited? If not reliable, can you remove it and instruct that a proper citation is needed? And, out of curiosity, if Gawker can't be used does that mean that websites like TMZ cannot be used either? Thanks! -- (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I replied to you (above) about Central Region United Synagogue Youth. -- (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm behind on getting back to several folks, sorry about that. this is probably stronger, while it's not a contentious claim, I would avoid Gawker, they've got a fairly poor reputation for accuracy and editorial control as I recall. You can always get a more decisive answer from WP:RSN, but in general if you're worried about a source the best thing to do is to hit Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books and such and just find one that seems more reliable and neutral. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the guidance and link! -- (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. 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) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I have done a few of the !votes, but would like you to review beofre I do anymore, to make sure I'm on the right track. Thanks :)--Chip123456 TalkContribs 19:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Pongalur Kongu.ERA.Manikandan & Indic scripts

Hi JD, I've just seen Pongalur Kongu.ERA.Manikandan prod'ed, which is probably not before time. However, I was away for a few days and missed your edits there. Among them was one that reinstated the Tamil language version of the guy's name. For future reference, we are trying not to use Indic scripts - User:Sitush/Common#Scripts explains and has a link to the RfC. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unaware of that! (In general, I find alternate language translations to be helpful when searching for other sources, but transliterations that aren't used in sources anyway do seem a logical thing to avoid.) Anyway, thanks for the heads up! --j⚛e deckertalk 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Rani300 -- more attention may be required

Rani300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was warned at level 3 by yourself and level 4 by me a few days ago for changing the text of page protections. Another editor informed me a few hours ago that s/he has done the same thing again. Since the prior incidents were a few days ago, and I was a couple hours late, I decided not to report him/her to AIV. However, Rani300 still clearly does not "get the point," so perhaps further admin attention of some kind is due. Thanks. --Jprg1966 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He or she only thinks they're changing the protections on the page, the template is meant as information, but it doesn't cause protection itself to be changed. I'll take a look, though, thanks for the note! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
He hasn't reverted since your warning, I have little hope that that will be the end of it, but I'll wait and see. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


User: has repeatedly been making edits that are malicious or non-constructive. I reverted this malicious one, but none of the others. Apparently, User: was the same user and the IP address is assigned to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The user has in fact made edits to content about the CDC. See User_talk: and User_talk: -- (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The "malicious" edit doesn't appear to be malice, and some of the other edits look arguable. There's nothing wrong with either "before" or "prior to", of course, but there are differences in formality that's a legitimate content discussion. And with the CDC being as large of an org as it is, I'd be surprised if there weren't some edits there about the CDC, I'll look through those more carefully. Thanks for keeping an eye out, though. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


I'm really glad you said that, because we're certainly going to have more saying the same thing, and we need that voice in the mix sooner rather than later. I think the others aren't getting the point of my proposal in the section just above that one ... mainly because that proposal is designed to give something to people who strongly agree with you so you guys won't feel like you're being forced to walk away with nothing. Does that proposal help at all? - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be just as happy with that, mostly in the few cases I care about, I just want to make sure that eyeballs catch serious problems that have gotten onto, and one or twice stayed for quite a while, onto a very small number of pages. Maybe I just try too hard to avoid FP indef.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 20:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. 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) 02:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandal edit warring on Myrtle Sarrosa

Hi. I would like to request assistance regarding the ongoing vandalism on the Myrtle Sarrosa article. A vandalism-only account (User:Redflamehaze) keeps on adding derogatory statements on this article and I have reverted his/her edits several times. The user keeps on reverting my edits and then he/she created another account (User:Myrtss) and continued on vandalizing the said article. I have requested to semi-protect this article at WP:RPP hours ago but no admin have taken action yet on my request. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected, and it looks like another admin has blocked the IP. Thanks for letting me know. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


I've been attempting to use Reflinks with Gwanghae but it won't load all the references for me. Would you see if it works for you? Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not working for me on that article, but it did work for me on another article I tried. Not sure why, weird. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Another ImageHyper vandal

Joe, add another mole to whack. User: inserted an ImageHyper photo link to Marissa Mayer today. Here is the edit. It is the same photo that some of the other users you banned had inserted. This user, instead of just adding it as a new link, simply substituted the URL of an already-existing link without changing any of the other info (source, date).

Also, not sure if you had a chance to look at that list of external links I mentioned in my post above but I'd be curious to here your opinion. I read WP:EL but just am not sure which, or how many, links are acceptable to add to an article. It just seems like a big overkill in Marissa Mayer.

Finally, this sentence was added by a user to the Career and honors section of Marissa Mayer: "The video of Mayer's 2011 interview of Lady Gaga as part of the Musicians@Google series has received almost two million views on YouTube.[16]" Is it allowed to link to a YouTube video like that? And if it is, is that sentence even worthy of inclusion in the article? -- (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving up on whack-a-mole, I'm going to see if MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist will add imagehyper. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
External links: It seems excessive to me, too. Maybe move a block of the ones you think to be extraneous to the talk page? No opinion on the YouTube thing, really, one way or another, you can always raise that at the article talk page. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey 76, we got that blacklist entry! --j⚛e deckertalk 08:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Could you please review the recent edits at Redbox and review the recently denied request for semi-protection. I don't understand how someone can introduce clearly personal edits anonymously without discussion -- and still the protection request is denied. 842U (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a problem to me. Semi'd for a week.--j⚛e deckertalk 21:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AFD Project

Hi! I saw that you are helping out users on AFDs and I was wondering if I could also complete the AFD project. I have made about 12 NAC's, and I have voted over 92 times, where my vote has matched the consensus 78% of the time. I am going for RFA in January and although I don't plan to work in AFD's as an admin, I'd like to get some more experience there by completing your program. Thanks, Electric Catfish 15:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Hi Electric, let me give a look, and think about how much time I have. I'd love to if I can, but I'd like to do a decent job of it if I do. Give me a day or two to get back to you, sorry for the delay. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User:Joe Decker/AfDProject1's talk page.. I'm only doing 1 or 2 every few days, hope you don't mind :)--Chip123456 17:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chip, I don't mind! There's no rush! --j⚛e deckertalk 03:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - death of Kile Glover

Hello, Joe. I made this edit request on the Usher talk page, but no one has replied to it. I was hoping you could make the edit. I normally would just wait, but the edit request is important because it involves incorrect information about the death of a child. Thank you very much. -- (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Please disregard. The edit has already been completed. -- (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 76, sorry I missed this, glad it got taken care of. I was closing a messy situation elsewhere. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:United States Man and User:Jots and graphs

Joe, User:United States Man and User:Jots and graphs are repeatedly making non-constructive edits to 2012 Aurora shooting. I noticed that another user has questioned both of them about it on their talk pages. My own issue with these two is that they are repeatedly changing the "T" in "theater 9" and "theater 8" from a lower case T to an upper case T. (Those are the theater numbers in the building that were involved in the shootings.) I explained to them that it is not an actual/formal title and therefore should be lower case T's. Not to mention that it doesn't adhere to WP style and AP style, regardless of whether some media outlets are incorrectly using an upper case T. I even added a citation from the major newspaper in the area (The Denver Post) which uses a lower case T in their stories, yet they continue to revert and do so with no edit comments. User:United States Man even removed the (Denver Post) citation once he saw that it supported my edit. The edits regarding the "T" issue are all happening in the Shooting section of the article. Can you tell these guys to please stop editing this way. It's not just with me. I see other users are also having problems with them. Thanks! -- (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

76.. I can't dig in right now. Have they gone past 3RR? If not, I'd try, in order, talking it to the talk page (leave an edit summary suggesting they join you), leaving a note on their talk page,and if after a time both of those fail, taking it to WP:EWN or the like. Except in exceptional cases, and this isn't one, stuff below 3RR isn't actionable (and shouldn't be); going past 3RR is something you can immediately take to WP:EWN. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
They have both edit-warred with other users. I have no doubt they both easily exceed 3 reverts. But as far as this factual/sourced issue with them repeatedly changing to an upper case T, I was hoping (as are other users) that you could get them to stop it. Thanks, Joe. -- (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the line is "3 reverts in 24 hours". --j⚛e deckertalk 15:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

Hello, Joe. I have placed an unblock request at User talk:HandsomeFella to ask you for further information. You blocked the user for edit warring, but I can find nothing in the user's editing history that looks remotely like edit warring more recently than 17 July. It is difficult to see how blocking for edits that stopped six days ago can be preventive, but I thought it better to check with you in case I have missed something. Have I? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for pointing me at the discussion, I've unblocked him based on his implication that he won't continue the behavior, as well as providing further explanation of my original rationale on his talk page. It sounds as if you may have not seen the edits as Toni Androic, which were made after Jelena was full protected, as part of the same battle. I viewed them, correctly or no, as signs of moving what I see moving the argument to a different venue.
More specifically, I'm deeply concerned and even more deeply saddened by the months-long failure of wars over tennis diacritics to reach resolution through requested moves, dispute resolution, ANI, and so forth. I see the "larger war" as the issue I'd like to prevent the perpetuation of. I see it, in part because of the "smallness" of the underlying policy dispute, as being particularly highly detrimental to the editing community.
It is my weak hope that the blocks will help make it clear that "enough is enough", and slow, if not completely prevent, the future progress of this larger war via reverts. I further hope that this will encourage a couple of the editors to pursue the dispute appropriately at WT:AT or MOS/Bio. We'll see. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I could see that there was more to this than just edit warring on one article, but without knowing exactly where to look for the rest of the relevant history, I didn't know enough about it to make an informed judgement. Your comment here and your messages at User talk:HandsomeFella go a long way towards making the reason for the block clearer. For what it's worth, my feeling on this, as in many many cases of edit warring, is "why on earth would anyone care enough one way or the other about such a trivial issue to spend so much time and effort trying to get it their way?" JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your lookover. And your last comment--it's a mystery. I wish I understood how so much can come about from such a small thing. Again, thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for forcing the issue to RfC. It was supposed to go to the talkpage after the ANI report. Anyway can you take another look at the mass message you send to all interesting parties. The bit about reverting talkpages and policies does not make sense in this context. Agathoclea (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder on those notices, I've updated each with a note about the RfC and an apology for the confusing wording of my previous note. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Federer "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time" dispute

Joe, could you please read this talk page discussion on Roger Federer and reply to it with your opinion? It's all about one matter. Is the statetment that Federer is "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time" appropriate on Wikipedia? Or does it violate WP:WEASEL and other guidelines? It is in the opening sentence of the article. Thank you. -- (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Joe, two users, User:TennisAnalyst004 and User:Rracecarr keep reverting the reverts of two administrators, User:Slakr and User:The_Bushranger, who saw the problem sentence (above) and reverted it from its current POV version to a less-POV version that had been on there for a long time. Here is the first revert of an admin's revert. And here's the second. They both said it violates WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. And the first admin even explained in the talk page discussion why he was reverting the objectionable sentence: "Since this change was relatively recent (it doesn't exist before [5]), I moved it out of the lead and made the wording a little more neutral. It's clear that several people/sources believe him to be the best player ever, but it's far removed from the defining, non-subjective facts of his career—the statistics and awards otherwise either do or don't speak for themselves, depending on the reader, but we're not parrots to the judgment calls of others. As a rule of thumb, avoid coercing the reader to accept judgment statements derived from those made by others; that's part of the nature of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV." He also gave a great example of why the objectionable sentence needs to be changed (see his Forrest Gump comment in the talk page). It's so frustrating to have this consensus-building discussion, while a couple of rogue user decide their going to defy administrators. Slakr told TennisAnalyst that he has a history of edit-warring in that article. Not to mention that TennisAnalyst is actively involved in the talk page discussion, yet still chose to edit the page even though no consensus has been reached. Can you please revert the latest revert (if it hasn't already been done by the time you get there)? -- (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
76, as I'm currently managing a separate dispute with at least two of the same editors, I think it would be best for everyone involved if this was handled by another admin. Try getting page protection at WP:RFPP, and if you feel the situation escalates to an edit war, WP:EWN as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 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, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I won't take another thread upn so, -ll post here!I have not forgotten about the prokect, it will be done!Chip123456 07:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Memorial High School

Hi Joe, I did a cleanup of the "Notable alumni" section on Memorial High School and got this auto-warning right away on my talk page. I replied to the warning notice I got to report it as a false positive. I don't know if I was supposed to give an explanation, but I did. I wrote: "This is a false positive. I cleaned up the "Notable alumni" section to remove alumni who clearly do not meet WP:ALMAMATER guidelines. Did lengthy research on Turner and Gotcher and found nothing to support notability. Knight by the description alone is obviously not notable (his biggest accomplishment was being a high school football player; and notability cannot be inherited.) Also removed unnecessary description content for remaining and replaced with standard "notable alumni" brief description, and linked to their WP articles." It's strange because I've cleaned up a number of other alumni lists in the past and never had a problem. Another admin had gave me great tips on how to do it, what to look for, and how to follow the notability guidelines, particularly for school alumni lists. This list was pretty obvious who was notable and who wasn't. I'm not sure what to do now. Thanks! -- (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG has a very complex model for determining what is and isn't vandalism, I believe based on neural networks or the like, and it does simply make mistakes. You were right to report the error as a false positive, and I've restored your version of the article. I don't think you need to worry about it, it's not as if somebody is going to come along and slap your wrist for it, it was just a mistake on ClueBot's part.
I'm guessing that ClueBot's algorithms were keying off in part how much material was removed (it wasn't just a prune of the alumni, you also removed a lot of probably excessive detail about each one), and that it is also factoring in some additional probability of the edit being non-constructive based on you not having a registered account. (I know you've expressed the view that you lose some sense of privacy if you create an account or some such, but as near as I can tell, quite the opposite is true. From your IP I can, with one-click, find the city and state you live in, the name of your ISP, whether you have a dynamic or static IP, and so on. And anyone who visits Wikipedia can do the same thing. Whereas, I *can't* get any of that information about registered accounts. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot by trying to contribute here under an IP rather than making an account, but that's entirely your choice, you may have other reasons, and that's totally cool.) Hope this is helpful. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the great explanation about the bot and for restoring my version of that edit. As far as the account, it's really not an issue about privacy because, as you said, I'd obviously have more privacy WITH an account. It's more about me wanting to edit for awhile and seeing if I'm enjoying it enough to want to start an account. But sadly, what I'm finding is that there are a lot of disruptive and hostile editors on here. But it's the great ones who have kept me from not abandoning ship. If everyone was as friendly, helpful and supportive as you, I'd start an account today. ;) -- (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind! --j⚛e deckertalk 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012. 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) 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

John Muir High School

Hi Joe. The Controversies section of John Muir High School contains some extremely contentious content about three teachers. Also, one of the incidents is very detailed, and another simply mentions the teacher only being "detained," but not convicted. Can you please take a look at it and remove any, or all, of the content as you see fit. Is any of it appropriate for an article about a high school? I'd rather have an expert like you make the call. I didn't want to touch it. Thanks. -- (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed the last part, even if he was convicted, unlike the other two events, I see a less of a relationship with the high school itself. (Whereas, the racial comments about students, and group sex with presumably students, do at least take a stab at being relevant to the school. It still might be too much, and you're welcome to start a Talk page discussion on it, but I don't feel bad about a BRD with respect to the final allegation. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Meh, there was more to remove. Thanks for pointing me at this. The racial comments looks like it got wide coverage, the LA Times and Christian Science Monitor article refs hopefully will make the size of that particular controversy a bit more clear. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Joe. I always trust your judgement. On a side note regarding the teacher who was arrested (with no mention of conviction), I remember reading a discussion regarding content about someone who was arrested for a white collar crime. There was no mention of a conviction or prison time in the article. An editor claiming to "represent" the arrested person said all the content about the person should be removed because the charges were eventually dropped. One admin took that as a legal threat. From there, it went up to higher level admins who ultimately said it was not a legal threat (although close to it) and that the content should be removed because the person was never convicted (as proven by articles they found). So when I saw this article mentioning an arrest, but not a conviction, my Wikiredflag (my own, new term) went up. Haha. -- (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, in general, we try and avoid allegations that don't pan out, particularly with low-profile individuals. Obviously this doesn't prevent us from covering the events around someone famous (e.g., O J Simpson), but some random person who gets arrested and released? No way to know what really happened there to cause that arrest, and unless the event or the person were very high-profile, ... yeah. Sounds like that previous article had quite a bit of a mess going on, I've fortunately seen very few legal threats here.

fyi Dénes Lukács

Just a heads up. An editor in your rfc decided to change the lead at Dénes Lukács (tennis) while the rfc is going on. He said he didn't realize the edit warring/rfc on it. No reason not to believe him but he had concerns about the fact it had no sourcing for the alt name and didn't want to personally revert himself because of no sourcing. It sounded reasonable so I added the sourcing (3 of them) for the alt name before restoring. I thought it prudent given the circumstances to let you know, trivial as it might seem to others. later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hijacked account

I am not so sure if I can risk myself to do that, but I'm definitely going to need help if my Wikipedia account actually does get compromised again. You might have to ask the staff of Wikipedia to let them know that my account was compromised and put a stub on it, to let them know, until I can prove that I'm the real owner of the account. But that's only if it REALLY happens. Until then, I'd like to find other ways to call for help as well, and to make sure that it never happens again. I changed my password to a new and stronger one, but I'm not so sure if the hijackers can still manage to steal it, in the future.

BlueMario1016 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In terms of identifying yourself in the future, one thing that was recommended to me when I became a sysop was to place on my account a committed identity. Essentially, you choose a passphrase, get a encrypted hash from it, put that encrypted hash on your User page, and then hold onto the passphrase. By showing, should the account get hacked, that only *you* know the passphrase that would give that hash, you can show (once, at least) that are the same person who uploaded the hash to the user page in the first place.
But still it might be the only thing you could do is get that account blocked. The foundation appears uninterested in discussing stolen accounts. Checkusers might have more ideas than I do, and the ones I've talked with seem nice, but really, I've run out of ideas for you besides what I've said here. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Douchebag

Could you please unprotect? One vandalism edit in a week is hardly "persistent vandalism". Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, full protection should only be used in the most extreme cases. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've backed it down to a few additional days, I think it'll be a problem again, but it can be your problem.  :) - -j⚛e deckertalk 21:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Runningonbrains and JoeDecker. There's a reason why I petitioned for indefinite full protection. As demonstrated the page's traffic has not gone down to it's background level, more editors "in good standing" are getting caught by the "Let's Vandalize for Tesla Justice" trap. If auto confirmed editors can't help but do it, it makes sense to have the indefinite full protection. How many changes in the past year have been "valid"? I'm betting 1 or 2. The rest are adding someone's name, Edison, or some other vandalistic action. I'll petition again as soon as the next sleeper account decides to be uppity and vandalizes it again. Hasteur (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur, I largely agree, although reasonable admins would vary widely in the right thing to do here. In Runningonbrains defense, the problems have at least been minor (relative to some of the worst vandalism we see) and the article is watched enough to get corrected. I'd still give odds that the next edit is non-constructive, and I'll be happy to greatly extend the protection again when that happens, hopefully with a bit more unanimity. At least it won't break the encyclopedia to do one more round. If it helps, you are welcome to email me if you notice the next bit of vandalism there before I do. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 07:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I believe this is non-negotiable. Are you saying that because we're experiencing about one vandal per week (FAR below the level I've seen on many other non-protected pages) on a highly watched page that we should just lock the page down? In my opinion this is contrary to Wikipedia's mission. Furthermore, the vandals have accounts, so they are even easier to deal with than the typical IP vandal.
This isn't even a WP:BLP or WP:LEGAL issue. It's just silly vandalism that is occurring infrequently and is being quickly reverted. If this is considered unacceptable, then we might as well shut down the whole project. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Brains... It is a BLP issue. if you look through the history you'll see no constructive edits in over a year. Multiple have been BLP issues, other (like Edison) are Personal attacks. Indefinite full protection is to prevent disruption of the page. Indef Full protection doesn't prevent anyone from editing, it just means we've acknowledged that there's a higher threshold to constructive content necessary for this page. Please cite where we claim "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I however point at The 5 Pillars, specifically Pillar 2 which a synopsis says All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. This suggests that the verifability and accuracy trumps the need for random users to edit the contaversial topic when it's pretty much defined already. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Butting in here ... :-) Generally, yes, anyone can edit this encyclopedia, but we also have to protect ourselves against defamation lawsuits. Certain articles, user pages, talk pages, and yes, even dab pages are constantly being vandalized, and quite frankly, need indef protection, but those are a tiny number compared to the two million we now have. I endorse this specific indef protection. This is an extreme case. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Citation for "anyone can edit" is at the top of this page, which I think is pretty important.
As far as your BLP accusations, they are ridiculous on their face can you please point to a single BLP problem with this article that couldn't (and doesn't) occur on any other article? What's to stop vandals from targeting, say, worm and editing to say "John Smith is a worm and a douchebag." WP:BLP is about articles that are ABOUT or INVOLVING a LIVING person. That's the title of the page: Biographies of Living Persons. I think it's pretty ridiculous to allege that Douchebag is a biography, or that Thomas Edison is a living person.
In the two years before The Oatmeal got involved, there was one instance of vandalism on this page. ONE! Compare this to three constructive or good faith edits. Now look at the time the article has been semi-protected since it was initially fully protected on May 16. Between two separate additional full protection periods, the page has been semi-protected for 45 days. In that time there have been six instances of vandalism, all of which were quickly reverted, since this is a highly watched page. That's less than one vandal per week!! And in the 4 days since the last time it was dropped to semi-protection, there hasn't been a single instance of vandalism. How can you not see how ridiculous full protection would be in this case? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:FoP-USonly

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:FoP-USonly. 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, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Joe Decker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chip123456 10:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wilhelm Cauer GA

I think I am about done with Wilhelm Cauer. If you would like to revisit the GA review I would be grateful. SpinningSpark 11:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On it! I added a note to the image, giving an Internet Archive link for the image source, as I was still getting a 404 there, but that's all fine, I'll be back with any other comments (if I have any!) very soon. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, silly me, I put the same old link back in by mistake. There should be one there that works now. SpinningSpark 23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries at all! Congrats! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
PS: And yep, that looks right, thanks for the fix! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy Martin (English musician)

Hi Joe. Thanks for the heads up. I found a few references to Andy on GBooks. I think he might squeeze by for notability. I'll if I can clean the article up a bit and add some references.Pburka (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, and thank you! I owe ya one! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did you deleted page Dima Tkachenko

This page is not copyright of wieniawski. It is official biography of musical artist. It is open information, and this can use anyone. So please, can you restore this page. for contact: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The information on that page, says, at the bottom, "All rights reserved Materials and content stored on the site are the property of Henryk Wieniawski Musical Society of Poznan." Is that not correct? If you are an official of that Musical Society, I can tell you how to allow the material to be licensed for use in Wikipedia and elsewhere and allow the material to be recovered. A complete description of what would need to be done can be found here. Once that process is complete, it would be easy to restore the article. Best of luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 05:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographical features)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographical features). 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, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Hollyoaks characters (2010)

Hello. I was unsure why the List of Hollyoaks characters (2010) has been unprotected. This list has been the target of vandalism since August 2011. I am aware that a few IP's have been blocked - but this indivual has been IP hopping for the past year. Surely they can just carry on where they left off now?Rain the 1 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Protecting (even semi-protecting) a talk page for a long period of time is a measure of last resort. I'll reexamine the history, however. By the way, you did notice that the page you listed is still protected, that it's the talk page we're discussing, yeah? --j⚛e deckertalk 19:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
My mistake - for a second I thought you unprotected the actual list too. They began removing the sources for the character's name on the talk page recently. So I guess it does not need protection unless they return.Rain the 1 19:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, no worries then. No, I just unprotected the talk page, a minute after I protected it. I would oppose unprotecting the article. Have a great week! --j⚛e deckertalk 19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

20 things/climate damage/WER

If you don't mind I thought I would play with your recent entry. Feel free to change completely to better express if necessary. Plus, just an added thought I wanted to share w/ you while I'm here, on your front lawn (next to the dangeruos looking pit). In a gathering like this, 20 reasons, I suggest we not sign our inclusions. It comes from a brainstorming technique we use at work. When we sign our contribution we become part of it. Kinda like a stew with 20 ingredients...mine is collard greens. But consensus says, "We don't like collard greens". If I don't sign them, the greens aren't mine. I'm not overly committed to them. I'll search for another ingredient without any hesitation or need to defend the greens. And the quest for 20 reasons goes on without stopping to bicker. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Run with it with my best wishes and enthusiastic support. I was a little worried it was a little off-topic, but I'm also a bit distracted today IRL. And I'm fine without the sigs, it's the ideas that matter. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 18:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


All done for you :)--Chip123456 10:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The diacritical travelling circus

Hi Joe. Remember Sophie Lefèvre? The same crowd are now at it with Jelena Janković. I'm sorely tempted to block the job lot of them. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Who could blame you? I certainly wouldn't. On the other hand, if they move this somewhere else, it will be time to start writing up an entry at WP:LAME, and there is at least some amusement in that.  ;-)
I did drop a full protect on the article. I wish only that i were more optimistic that it would make a difference. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Understatement. Excuse me butting in, I came here to reply to Joe's pp message. Both this isn't your problem, and Joe, thanks for freezing page but please note that "the same crowd" are quite large here: I count up to 20 different editors reverting Fyunck's WP:TENNISNAMES style ledes over the 100x BLPs affected - it's just that different editors are reverting Fyunck on different BLPs. For example I wasn't among those reverting the Jelena Janković or Saša Hiršzon, but I did revert "Sophie Lefèvre known as Sophie Lefevre" once on 8 April, am pretty certain I have reverted a similar BLP elsewhere, and clearly recall slapping dubious tags on at least 10x of these ledes, though I doubt they are still there. Anyway, the point - There already has been an extensive entry per WP:LAME at WP:TENNISNAMES. It already has been discussed and a conclusion drawn. I've just pasted the relevant sections of WP:AT and MOS Biographies into the Talk of Jelena Janković as Joe requested. But what good will it do? What about them isn't already crystal clear? Do we really have to have Björn Borg featured as in example in WP:OPENPARA before a couple of tennis editors will follow it? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'll see what I can do, and I do appreciate your thoughts here. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your close, you made a fair, clear and understandable summation. Points 1 and 3 are well understood and I regret earlier reverts of Fyunck's ledes at Sophie Lefèvre and elsewhere in April.
2. Get a clean policy consensus with an RfC on this narrow question: "Should unaccented forms of accented names be included as significant alternate names with respect to the language at WP:AT?" Do this at WT:AT. I suspect an RFC will find consensus there. Many intelligent, pragmatic arguments were made here, but it's not my role here, today, to decide WP style policy where it has not yet gained a broad consensus.
Is Wikipedia talk:Article titles actually the right place? As I understand it, this isn't a title issue but a lede issue. Might not Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies be more appropriate? That's where the current guidelines on ledes are. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I was just writing you. I've gone back and forth on that, and that might indeed be a better choice. (There's a line near the start of WP:AT that will need changing or modification or explanation either way, which is what I was thinking, but your suggestion is great too.) I'll add that to the close. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yep. What is the line near the start of WP:AT which affects ledes rather than titles? Or should be changed anyway? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, it's a bit late, I'm not writing clearly! The sentence I was thinking of is "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." and whatever the RfC decides will determine if the undiacriticed form is or isn't "significant", so we'll want a footnote, pointer, or something to rivet the decision in place. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Got it. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, sorry but I'm considering pulling out of the RfC you set up - not that that doesn't mean thanks for doing it. All it illustrates is the problem with RfCs; i.e. mainstream editors don't attend them. Several months back, at the advice of Mike Cline in his close on Talk:Stephane Huet I invited all 100 or so commenting editors in the previous 30 days of (mainly WP:TENNISNAMES) RMs to take up Mike Cline's invitation at WT:BLP. Only a few of the 90 who'd supported French/Hungarian etc. names in RMs turned up. The 10 or so supporters of sports-sources-names turned up in full. This additionally appears to extend to the problem with MOS pages in general - the editors who edit "editors-should-do-this" pages and editors who create and improve the actual articles have many disclocates. This in part explains the frustration of (for example) East Europe editors who keeping on having to revert "English names" BLP edits - which at least one of those editors calls xenophobic, others think and don't say. That's no excuse for edit warring. It would be nice if WP had a automated MOS page changes mechanism like WP:RM where you could submit 1 sentence edit into a central democraticish collegiate funnel and get immediate wide consensus in bullet points. When WP:RM isn't broken, that is :) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
PS and I guess to be even saying "pulling out" is itself an indication of how narrow representation these things get. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely empathize with your frustration here. Now that my laptop is functioning again, I'll look to see if I can find neutral and appropriate ways to advertise the discussion further. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi again, you may have missed this, but the essayist of WP:TENNISNAMES, with backing from the actual implementer of the tennis ledes, took me to ANI twice in the last 48 hours for "obstruction" on the RfC you opened. (Well it's certainly true I would obstruct these ledes if I could). I made mention of admin decisions on the original WP:TENNISNAMES RfC and of the new RfC in the first round but didn't receive a notification or catch the second round. Whatever. More to the point a RfC on a MOS page talking shop is simply not going to work - or at least not know after 4 months of fatigue from the original WP:TENNISNAMES. Mainstream editors (who are busily churning out 1,000s of new London 2012 BLPs as we speak - without tennis ledes) are not going to get enmeshed in verbal battling with 3 or 4 editors absolutely wedded to the concept of "English names for foreigners." And I shouldn't be either. With respect, though I completely understand your reasons for proposing it, unfortunately the RfC is not acheiving anything except undermining the result of the original WP:TENNISNAMES RfC.
As far as I can see the only mechanism on en.wp which attracts a broader spectrum (not much broader, but still) is the WP:RM process. It would be fairly simple technically to put in a RM on one of the 2 or 3 still at tennisname titles, such as Mario Rincon, for example, and include in the rationale the collapsed box of "Mario Rincón known as Mario Rincon" tennis ledes, as tied to the RM discussion. It would also have the advantage of a focussed yes/no. In my view that's an advantage at least, I don't know how you would feel on that.
Unless there's a better idea?
Or leave the 100x Living Persons with 2 names as some kind of monument to tennisnames and wait for one of them to be triggered by an editor who doesn't know there's a 1RR on them? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I had not followed the ANI threads, I'll take a look. RM might work, but I'm unconvinced that it won't be bounced for "wrong process." AfD, which I've spent more time at, tends to take a fairly narrow view of its charter, RM might too. Nonetheless, RfC should be given its traditional 30 days to fail, and for someone uninvolved to come along and close. I'll look at trying to put up another neutral poke or two for additional eyes, but I certainly understand your concerns about under-participation. I'm facing a similar issue at another discussion I'm having to throw up my hands at. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of interest, if you don't mind me asking, what is the other RfC? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Authorship_creditation, looks like they're also discussing at the Film wikiproject. So it goes. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not something I know a great deal about. FYI I proposed a RM on 4 of the remaining 5 anglicized tennis BLPs at Talk:Jose Benitez. Did not include the lede issue in the actual WP:RM listing, but noted to disregard on Talk page. I hope that's in line with what we discussed above. If not please feel free to edit my edits. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it certainly doesn't strike me as a CAVNAS issue with regard to the RfC, but we'll have to see how much flack it generates. From my perspective, my primary goal is to find a way to mitigate the edit warring, which seems at least temporarily quelled. The RfC is still being advertised,b tw, interestingly, I got an invite to it.  ;-) --j⚛e deckertalk 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You got an invite? After traveling through the grapevine did the wording diminish into something unrecognizable to the original ;-) I'm guessing it has died down because this rfc is open and you requested all articles not to be touched. With new mentionings in a RM that truce could change with removals and additions. I sure hope not. As you were instrumental with the truce I would bring such removals/additions to you first in hopes you could help and as you said, "get back together and try and deal." Great Olympics... gonna get back to the closing ceremonies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I got an invite from the automated "Feedback Request Service", you can see the diff here. I deleted it, as I get a lot of them and only archive those I respond to. As near as I can tell, the RMs are not involving edit warring nor the lead wording issue. While I might enjoy the power to be able to stop all diacritic-related activity on Wikipedia for a month, I'm already at the edge of the extent I'm willing to use my "bit". By the way, the Wikipedia:Feedback request service is pretty cool, check it out. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy Slater - Radio Page

Hi Joe. I noticed the Andy Slater page is up for deletion. Andy has been a sports radio show host on 640-AM WMEN Sports for over four years. Reading the deletion comments, it seems like there was some question to that. I am not perfect here on Wikipedia but I will post a couple of links below that will show this. As far as a "BBC Award", that may be another Andy Slater, but not the sports radio show one. I don't believe there was any mentions of that on the page.

Below are two links. The last one is when a local television station come into Andy's studio and spoke with him, 3 weeks ago.

640-AM WMEN Radio in South Florida Andy Slater on WPBF-TV in West Palm Beach

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoon87 (talkcontribs) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. First, thank you for writing, maybe I can provide some context for what's going on in that discussion. I'll also add the sources you provided to the article, but they themselves don't get to the actual concern. I'll explain what the policy issues are, and perhaps together, if there's a way to bring the Slater article up to our WP:GNG level, we can prevent deletion. I'll try and explain that "GNG" thing, because there's a lot of technical Wikipedia policy involved there, and I feel we often do a horrible job of explaining those policies to people who'd really like to understand them.
The "GNG" is a guideline we describe as being about "notability", but I honestly feel that it's better to think about it in a different way. The guideline says we shouldn't have an article unless there are multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources that go into some detail on the subject. To my mind, this isn't about "is the article true?", it's more a question of whether there's enough third-party sources (things like newspaper articles, magazines, written at arm's length) about the subject that we can have some assurance we're writing a neutral article on the subject, something neither promotional or slanderous, either overtly or covertly. Whatever the "reasons behind" the guideline, that is a relatively well-accepted guideline on wikipedia, and the best way to save the article on Andy is to find a couple newspaper or magazine articles about him (profiles of him, that aren't press releases of him, etc.) and add those references to the article. The two references you provided, while accurate (I'm sure 640sports isn't lying about Andy working there!) and the video are not really considered arms-length sources, however, and while I'll add them, I don't think they'll sway the discussion.
I took the slowest of the three "deletion tracks" with this article intentionally with the hope that further sources would arrive, and in addition to these, I'll take another look through the usual passel of ways I find such sources and see what I can dig up myself. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 19:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Update I found a couple things, the "Crime scene" article actually gives two paragraphs to an interview he did with OJ, which is the sort of thing our policies are looking for. A couple of passing mentions is, well, if not "quite there", close enough I've withdrawn my deletion request. If another AfD admin agrees with my withdrawl, you'll see the deletion template removed from the article, probably in the next 24-48 hours. Thanks again for writing. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Joe, thank you for the help. I will post a few more links below that may be helpful. Report: Al Davis overrules decision to cut Mike Mitchell Racist Tweets Directed At Jacory Harris Found Need Baseball Gambling Tips? Ask The Marlins The Andy Slater Show Podcasts And indeed the Dolphins cut Larry Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoon87 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


Can you please stop with the BLP prods. Your time would be better spent adding the exact urls to their profiles by pasting the name into the london2012 search and copying and pasting the exact url into the article. Sources aren't that hard at all. Exactly. Google search any of them. But a lot of articles were missing during the olympics and I didn't have the time to research everyone fully. The idea is to share the load. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. I spend nearly my entire time here adding sources to unreferenced BLPs, in general with very little assistance. If you'd like to help, that would be great. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, may I take your comment as a statement that you intend to continue creating unsourced BLPs? --j⚛e deckertalk 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not unsourced BLPs at all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're in some disagreement on that point, then. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I owe you a longer and less snippy response. Give me a few minutes? Thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I just want to question, does a source necessarily need a deep link to be used? I would normally say that a deep link must be used; however, considering Ludvig Svennerstål, it took a half-second search to verify the information. (Note in this case you did not add a BLP-PROD). In addition, some websites do not allow deep linking; although, this has not been highly upheld in court. If the London 2012 Olympics page were to prohibit deep linking and it was upheld in court, links to the front page would have to be accepted. In any case, I'd like to get a wider view on the benefit of removing autopatrolled in this instance. On Dr. Blofeld's end, I highly suggest you find deep links in the future. Ryan Vesey 20:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think so, for web sites (less so books), and I can explain why. Web sites as sources are problematic becaues they are dynamic, and that already makes them hard to verify. Tools such as WebCitation and the Internet Archive provide some defense against this, but they do not replicate site searching functionality, nor do they provide much in the way of their own search functionality. In general, "oh, it's somewhere on such-and-such-a-site" ends up, in my experience, being just a little too far down the path of handwaving. I'm actually *less* bothered by lack of page numbers in whole offline book references. *Shrug* I admit it's all a little too rules lawyered, as is most of the policy around the edges of BLP unsourced and BLPPROD. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I got carried away in the heat of the Olympics, it seemed criminal to be missing so much when they're mostly heavily linked in other articles. It was not my intention to create unsourced BLPs at all. I wonder if a bot could be used to add the exact url links? Yes they ough to have direct links and birth dates bare minimum but there was a lot missing and it would have made me not bother..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope you'll accept my apology as well, I got carried away in the discussion too. I will take some time to contemplate that. I think I'd like to finish working the unsourced BLP pile back to nominal (it's only 50-60 away at this point) and then simply give up working on them entirely for a while. I'd really like to get to writing some more deep content.
I've noted to Ryan above why I'm concerned by shallow linkage as a reference, in general, that's the equivalent of a call I make every day with a bunch of other editors, it wasn't intended as personal. However, I know you and respect for your awesome bot and stub work (even if we have some different views on some minutiae like this). What I should have done is simply had a conversation about it and seen if we could have come to some sort of mutual understanding. So it goes. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, I can see the other perspective and I often go through periods where I focus only on quality. But sometimes I think we're so ignorant as a resource that it seems a good idea and productive to work towards something with minimal quality, seeing it as productive rather than a burden. I was watching a lot of the olympic events and seeing competitors and seeing loads of red links. I didn't have time to cover what I wanted in the time I had, so that was why things were a little rushed. If I'm honest I was hoping to see more interest and help in adding the exact urls and dates. If I can somehow arrange something to get the direct urls and birth dates added... Although the Beijing olympics sources are now only obtainable by subscription, likely will be he case wih the London website, they'll only keep the site up for a limited period. Could be problematic but I'm sure there is a way around it. The last thing I want is to cause a BLP freak show and warrant mass deletions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Could a bot have created all of the articles? Perhaps for the Winter olympics in two years we can create a bot to crawl the Olympics page. It could grab the name, sport, reference, possibly birth date etc. We can have it work at a relatively slow rate so it can be patrolled. If necessary we could create a "This article was created by a bot" template. If a page already exists under the name of one of the athletes, we could have the bot dump a bunch of articles into its userspace. If the athlete doesn't exist, then the page can be moved to "First Name Last Name (sport)". If the athlete does exist, the information can be added to the article. We'd need a lot of consensus to do so (I don't think a bot has created articles in a long time) and we'd need to have an expert program the bot. I'll try to find a bot to add the full url's on pages now. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be the uber-sexy, wouldn't it? I've only done very lightweight bot work, and my programming career is ten years in the past (I'm a photographer these days), but if there was a way I could help, I'd be so there. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If a bot does go through them, I could do a bit of expansion work after the articles are made, possibly about the size of Terry Bywater for each article? Thine Antique Pen (public) 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the idea sometime soon, to give a programmer time to build the bot and for consensus to be reached. I'm going to check for Wikipedia policies related to it. As a photographer, why are you not an admin on commons? Ryan Vesey 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Too much like work, I suppose.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 23:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes a bot could have created the articles and read off the website to add birth dates/height/weight and other data. Would have been much more efficient but unfortunately people frown against bots from the Rambot days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"On Dr. Blofeld's end, I highly suggest you find deep links in the future." Well, the Olympics are over and I feel no "rush" to create them right now so if I find any further missing ones I will do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)