User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 3

Copyvio-are you still interested?
Red Skelton-just found this. Have not put up the copyvio tag, etc. since you said you wanted to work on copyvios. Some of the Early years subsection and most of the Film, Radio and Television subsections have been copied and pasted from Skelton's website bio. The cut and pastes start here in early 2006. We hope (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, and see what I can do myself, or pass it over to the copyright experts, tonight or tomorrow, either way I'll make sure the issue doesn't get dropped. Thanks.  :)  --joe deckertalk to me 06:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm going to pass that one over the wall today to the real experts, but you're right that there's a CV in there, and it's going to take some sleuthing to figure out just how much to redact, etc. The first changes I looked at (the radio stuff) were rephrased, but probably too closely, and some of the later stuff looks more directly copied.  I was able to verify that there was text on the redskelton.com site at the time those changes were added to WP, so it's definitely not a case of "they took our wording."  --joe deckertalk to me 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wish this didn't keep happening, as it seems like I run into so many of them. Started out there hoping for more information on his George Appleby character and wound up with the vio. Had a look at your talk page note and took a quick look at where this IP editor had worked. I think the Easy Aces, Jane Ace, and Goodman Ace pages that were also edited by this person don't have any issues, as I've worked quite a bit with them for a while. If I'd seen anything that looked like a vio there, I would have either re-written (if it was minor) or reported the articles. If someone wants to drop me a talk page note when this is done, I'll try to have a go at reconstructing what has to be removed with refs. We hope (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try and keep an eye on that as it progresses, it's on my watch list. At this point, it'll probably stick around 7 days before anything more happens, part of the standard operating procedure which gives a chance in many cases for the copyright owner to license the material to Wikipedia, I think that's very unlikely in this case, but ... just thought I'd give you a sense of what to expect.  :)  Have a great week!  --joe deckertalk to me 02:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Young v. Lingle
Hi, I proposed this for deletion because the issue became a non-issue, making it the article fail WP:EVENT. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the notification, I think you're right, and I've endorsed the proposed deletion.  Have a great week!  --joe deckertalk to me 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Gareth Swift
Firstly I have to mention that your work with unreferenced BLPs is awesome. If everyone took the same trouble as you to exhaust all avenues before nominating articles for deletion then WP:AFD would be a far less confrontational place.

As regards Gareth Swift, please note that this was created as a seemingly valid redirect for a rugby player, who, unfortunately, doesn't fall under WP:BLP. There have been several attempts to hijack the article, without adding sources, to be about the gaelic football player. I think it would be better to protect the redirect rather than delete the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC) (p.s. I saw your message to me just before saving this)
 * First, thanks for the kind words! I am embarrassed that I missed the "late" part of Mr. Swift, though, and appreciate the heads up on that. And I think a protected redirect would be the best final result, yes, shall I make it so? Sadly it looks like one of the last reverters might be autoconfirmed by now, so I'm not sure semi would do the trick, might have to be full. --joe deckertalk to me 18:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would advocate full protection of the redirect as well. It can obviously be unprotected and dealt with should the Gaelic football player one day merit an article. —WFC— 22:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, seems sensible. --joe deckertalk to me 23:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Josef Wagner (painter)
I found a way to verify him, although you'd have to know Czech to write a really good article.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look, and I appreciate the effort. --joe deckertalk to me 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn my nomination, and I expect it'll be closed keep or withdrawn on that basis shortly. Thank you for finding that French source, well done!  --joe deckertalk to me 15:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Rusu
Hi there! You deleted an article of mine because it used text from an academic website. Since that website is access-free, Wikipedia is also access-free and the source was cited in the article, I see no point of your action. Mcris31 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the link you inserted above is about an obscure footballer (soccer player). Compare to the academic Professor and researcher in my article. Mcris31 (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor Judgement
For the record, I would like it stated that Mr Decker has shown poor judgement and political partisanship over his recent edits to Santorum and would suggest, depending on his other work, that his status as admin be revoked.andycjp (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, really?  Two edits, three months apart?  Both of which I stand by as legitimate?
 * If you'd like to have my actions censured, I believe WP:ANI is the proper venue for your complaint, and I strongly urge you to try your luck there.
 * I have to admit that I'm pretty baffled, though. Last night you removed entirely a link from a disambiguation page saying the article was non-notable, but the article being linked to had been closed keep in an AfD in December 2010, which I take to be a consensus that the community disagrees with you. Moreover, if you disagree with that, the proper way to appeal that is to bring the article to AfD, perhaps the fourth time is a charm. Sorry that you didn't get the AfD link to that when I made the edit, it appears that some of my rationale got cut off in the edit summary. --joe deckertalk to me 15:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you seem to feel if a Catholic politician has a Smear campaign run against him, that is more important than him being elected to the US Government. But people who are happy to see religious figures dragged through the mud are very quick to justify themselves when their own reputation is questioned ....When people talk smack about your family, you like it, do you? Don`t wikipedia libel/living persons regulations apply here? andycjp (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to express your concerns about the content in terms of Wikipedia policy? --joe deckertalk to me 00:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to concerns about WP:BLP policy, have you read the community discussions that have taken place on that issue? --joe deckertalk to me 01:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No I haven`t read every last detail of wikipedia policy- what I am saying is I expected more from an admin than a kneejerk Pro democratic revert. Fine if you vote democrat- but if you hold a position of power here you should care more about neutrality. If the obscenity related to the name of a liberal politican would you have reacted the same way? andycjp (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy (no offense intended, seriously, would you prefer that or Andycjp?), I think you misunderstand me here--I wasn't asking if you'd read some generic policy page. What I'm trying to say is that dozens of editors have argued out these specific arguments regarding the specific Santorum (sexual neologism) article in discussions that range from 2006 to a few months ago. The most recent AfD discussion is at, a specific discussion regarding the BLP implications of that article is here. Check out the talk page at the article itself, too.
 * As you haven't read those discussions, you likely weren't aware that there's been four or five years of discussion on these points and that some level of uncomfortable WP:CONSENSUS has arisen as a result of those discussions. The questions you are asking: "Is this notable?" "does this violate the BLP policy?" have been specifically argued by the community, and to some extent those questions should be rediscussed, rather than unilaterally overturned, if they're going to be overriden. --joe deckertalk to me 02:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I grudgingly accept your revert to include the link to an existing page, although I agree with those who feel that page would better be merged with Savage. I question your decision to place the slander at the top of the disamb page instead of as a sub heading under Mr Santorum himself, as clearly the whole issue is a side issue from his career. Wikipedia is not Google. andycjp (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Most appreciated! By the way, I didn't place it atop, I merely restored it to the previous version, where it was beforehand wasn't something I'd paid any particular attention to.  I have zero complaints if you move it within the disambiguation page, feel free to move it down the page if you haven't already. Sorry for the delayed response, it's been kinda a day here, and it's time for a beer. Have a great week!   --joe deckertalk to me 02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

MAK Halliday
Hi Joe, I noticed you added some refs to the article on Michael Halliday in January. Do you have an interest—either professional or (like me) amateur—in systemic functional linguistics/grammar? I wonder what your take is on the push to merge Nominal group (language) into the article on Noun phrase, which is cast according to a formal grammar—very different in my view. I'm concerned that as the SFL category expands into areas such as "verb phrase" and "verb group" there will be much more serious problems in putting very different grammatical frameworks into single articles. Put simply, it might be much easier for readers and editors to retain their separate treatment. What do you think? Tony  (talk)  16:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look in a few hours, I'm not knowledgable about such things, but perhaps an outside perspective can be of some use in any case. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 17:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look, I think I'm a bit out of my league, not that the articles don't seem straightforward, but without a reasonable amount of broader understanding of the subject I'm far from sure I'm not missing something significant. I do think there's a positive opportunity (if the two concepts in play here really are related but not identical) to use a merged article to more clearly elaborate on those differences as well as commonalities. On the other hand, I understand your concern that people will drive ahead without understanding and attempt to merge more disparate concepts going forward. I'd hope and expect people would look at new proposed merges independently, but you never know. Sorry I don't have something more insightful to offer, but I'm left without feeling like I understand enough to have a strong opinion for or against.  Sorry 'bout that! --joe deckertalk to me 06:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe, I'll take this into account. I'm concerned that those who want to merge will be attempting something Herculean: I tried to conflate aspects of SFG with those of traditional grammar many years back as a proposal for a state-wide school curriculum. It turned out to be a nightmare to express. So I'll be asking them to spell out exactly how it would be done. Cheers. Tony   (talk)  07:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Kara Taitz
You recently tagged the article on actress Kara Taitz, claiming that it was unsources, a fact which I don't dispute. I just happen to know of a source about this actress. The trouble is, the source is a *.doc-file that doesn't show up because the URL features brackets as characters. The site it can be found at is here, and this is the link( http://therighteousman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/TilDeathDoUsPart[1].doc ). Any way this can be fixed? DanTD (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm pretty sure it can be. I have to head out for a bit, but I'll take a look today and dig up the trick for that, and I'll both add the source and remove the the tag if the source looks WP:RS.  It may be a few hours, though.  Thank you!  --joe deckertalk to me 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got that fixed I think, however, as it's published from a BLOG it'd be of arguable reliability. I did a Google Books search and found another reference to at least back up participation in that play, which more reliably verifies it, added it to the article, and removed the deletion tag. Hope this helps!  --joe deckertalk to me 18:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS:  here's the trick for encoding square brackets in URLs.  --joe deckertalk to me 18:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Noah Lott Deletion
Dear Mr. Decker,

I helped my friend Adam Johnson (aka-Noah Lott) create his own Wiki page. However, it was deleted. Since we're new to this Wiki-verse, I just need to know the following:

1)Why? Noah is an experienced pro wrestler even though he is not a "well-known" wrestler.  He has wrestled throughout the United States and is used by the WWE in house shows even though he is not under contract.

2)The help section: No offense but the help section is of little help in settings.  Please review the Noah Lott page and tell us in plain English on how to set a page up properly. 3)Reconsideration. We also ask that you reconsider the deletion. Trust us, we have tried to edit it correctly and any assistance will be appreciated.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Rude' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.138.136 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Thomas, Glad to help. I'll try and explain things in plain English, but it'll be a bit long, so bear with me.  I will be happy to explain, elaborate, on any of this.  And no offense taken, I didn't write it, this is an almost-entirely volunteer effort, with thousands of participants, and most of us know that a lot of what's here isn't everything we wish it would be.


 * First, the article was deleted because there was a discussion (which is here, but some of it will be written in Wikipedia jargon), about whether or not the article should be kept according to various wikipedia policies and guidelines (which I'll try and explain in the next section). In terms of reconsideration, my role in the process is to look over the discussion and go "yeah, there seems to be a consensus" and implement it, I can't (or at least I shouldn't!) overturn the decision unilaterally. There is a process to review deletions called deletion review, which is at WP:DRV, and after you've read through everything here we can talk about whether it makes sense to try that, and what sort of information you'll want to collect before you go there to insure the best chance of getting the article restored.


 * So, why did the three editors in that discussion all believe the article should be deleted? Roughly speaking, there are a handful of policies and guidelines we have here on Wikipedia which determine whether an article is about a notable enough topic that we should have an article on it. There's a fair bit of history and rules-lawyering about what those guidelines mean, which isn't always apparent when they're read, so a plain English explanation is probably best in any case.


 * With some exceptions, most of the rules really boil down to what we call the general notability guideline. You may see the initials GNG associated with this.  What that guideline says is that to be notable enough to have an article, there need to be multiple, independent  reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of the article subject.
 * By multiple I mean at least two-or-three.
 * "Independent" refers to things that are written entirely independently from the article subject or the organizations they're involved in--were we talking about an article on me (there isn't one), that would exclude my press releases, my blogs, even for most purposes my "official web site."
 * "Reliable" insists that the articles are produced in a reliable way, IMDB is for most purposes *not* considered reliable (nor are other Wikipedia articles) because there's not enough editorial oversight--generally "reliable" is going to mean a magazine or newspaper article, a non-self-published book, or occasionally a blog or other internet resource if and only if it really has the sort of editorial oversight that (say) a magazine or newspaper would provide.
 * And "in-depth" means it needs to be more than a mention, there has to be some real coverage in each of these multiple sources to "meet the bar.", a paragraph or two if not the whole article.
 * In a perfect world, every statement in the article would be something said in one of those sources.


 * Why do we have all these requirements? You didn't ask, but it'd be a reasonable question at this point. There are a couple reasons, but a key issue, particularly for living people, is making sure that there's enough information to write an article that is neither promotion nor slander, that there's enough really solid coverage of the subject that we're neither going to talk crap about them or act as their ad agency. (I'm sure you can find examples where we fail, there are many, but we're working to reduce that.)  Different sources from different places give us an opportunity to try and present the subject from a neutral point of view, which is a goal here.


 * So, if you want the article back, what should you do next? First, go out and find those sources--a couple or more newspaper or magazine articles that talk for a paragraph or two about Noah, say.  With those in hand, then take them to WP:DRV and ask for the deletion to be overturned based on the new information.  It's best to go with a handful of really solid sources (no more than five, I'd say), rather than 20 weaker ones if you have the choice.  Hope this helps!  --joe deckertalk to me 20:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Reconstructing Red
It looks like there's enough material from Google News Archive to be able to rewrite and cite everything that had to be removed at Red Skelton due to copyvios. Think there might be enough to add information with refs in addition to restoring what's gone now. It may take a little time to get all of this done, but the good news is that we can restore what was lost. ;) We hope (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh great! I'm sure there's a lot of information on there about Red relative to many of the folks I come across.  Don't forget to look through Google Books (you probably already have), there's often a great deal of information there on early-era entertainers. There are a couple books in GBook's listings that I can't see inside, but it's possible that your public library might be able to obtain copies for you to look through. Also, I also checked my CREDO account but didn't come up with anything in the reference works they provide save for a few passing references. Thanks for your patience and work on all of this! --joe deckertalk to me 20:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have found that there are some books Google won't let you view at all or will only allow a snippet, but Amazon will let you view some pages if you have an account and sign in. One of my main sources for the Chicago Children's Television articles is no viewing at Google but with account and sign in at Amazon--same with Grace Slick's bio.  So don't count Amazon out as a source for viewing online either. ;) We hope (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, have had some success with that trick myself. :)  --joe deckertalk to me 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hydration for Health Initiative
Dear Mr Decker

We are writing to request the reinstitution of the Hydration for Health Initiative Wikipedia entry.

H4H Initiative Wikipedia Policy

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

How or why the subject is important or significant:
Notability (worthy of notice): Significant, verifiable coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources

Evidence showing the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition

•	Although H4H Initiative membership is open only to healthcare professionals, with a growing number of registered members

•	The H4H Initiative hosts a healthcare professional website, an invaluable educational resource with almost 4000 hits per month

•	As a professional service, the H4H Initiative facilitates dissemination of original, peer-reviewed articles on healthy hydration and nutrition to healthcare professionals around the world

•	H4H Initiative Annual Scientific Meeting Proceedings are independently published in reputable journals; 2009 proceedings were published online in the peer-reviewed journal, Nutrition Today

•	Since its recent inception in 2009, numerous educational programmes on healthy hydration have already been developed by the H4H Initiative in partnership with numerous governmental departments such as the Polish Ministry of Education, the Indonesian Department of Health and academic institutions, or endorsed by professional bodies such as the International Society of Nephrology (ISN)

•	The H4H Initiative Expert Working Group are all internationally renowned researchers and academics, recognised and respected in the fields of nutrition, hydration, physiology, medicine and beyond; noteworthy in their own right, their collaboration for improved public health is also highly noteworthy in both developed and emerging countries as they represent a unique, multidisciplinary perspective of interest to many other healthcare professionals

•	Additionally, the H4H Initiative was only established in 2009 so efforts to increase awareness and third-party references, particularly online, are ongoing

Not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity
Addressing long-standing, important unmet needs

•	The H4H Initiative aim to encourage more widespread advocacy of evidence-based healthy hydration is based upon contemporary health issues such as the obesity pandemic and long-standing unmet needs

•	The role of the H4H Initiative in promoting healthy hydration to health policy makers and healthcare professionals as a low-tech, low-cost intervention to counter the obesity pandemic and its associated CV risks as well as other health issues in emerging and developed countries demonstrates its relevance and long-term importance, justifying inclusion

Nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason
Non-promotional and neutral

•	As with other health education initiatives, the H4H Initiative is sponsored, however, there is never reference to any of Danone Waters’ natural mineral water brands, but only to water in general

•	Reference to Danone Waters is included solely for transparency and is not intended as corporate promotion

•	All information provided about H4H Initiative objectives are unbiased and presented from a neutral point of view

Summary
•	Rebuttal to the nomination for deletion as above

•	The article can be re-written to address the editorial comments of Mindmatrix, incorporating appropriate ‘noteworthiness’ points above – this may negate issues regarding suitability and reduce the possibility of deletion

•	Consider insertion of claims relating to unmet needs in hydration advice, nutrition and health risks that the H4H Initiative was created to address

•	Consider deletion of current healthy hydration claims, potentially merging them with the nutrition/water entry – this action can be deferred pending further editorial comment

We look forward to your response.

Kind regards

The Hydration for Health Initiative


 * Hello! As the article was deleted as the result of a community discussion, the appropriate place to appeal this decision is at deletion review (abbreviated DRV).  (Please see this page for a general description of how deletion processes work here at Wikipedia.). Roughly speaking, the editors who expressed an opinion on the article believed that the sources necessary to meet our notability guideline didn't exist. As a matter of procedure, I can't simply override the decision, it'd be highly inappropriate.


 * While editors in that discussion may have mentioned other points about the article, the key policy that you will want to address at deletion review to get the article restored is that of sourcing. The requirement that an article be backed by (and preferably entirely written from) multiple, reliable sources independent of the article subject is essentially non-negotiable, and those sources need to provide significant, not passing coverage of the Initiative.  Issues about an article being too promotional can usually be addressed by rewriting, and aren't a valid reason by themselves do delete an article or to leave it deleted. I urge you to find a couple, two or three, newspaper articles or magazine articles about your organization. and to bring those resources to your appeal at deletion review. That will maximize your chances of getting the article restored.


 * Best of luck! --joe deckertalk to me 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for HYDRATION FOR HEALTH INITIATIVE
An editor has asked for a deletion review of HYDRATION FOR HEALTH INITIATIVE. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bertieri4 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Good luck!   --joe deckertalk to me 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cecil B Murgatroyd
Hi, This page - Cecil B Murgatroyd] was deleted "tagged as hoax" but it isn't.  Here's some links to youtube versions of television appearances Thin Red Line - Anti Australian Republic circa 1999 Channel 31 Television appearance Can you please restore it? Thanks. Karensmart33 (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that request (disclaimer: I'm a friend of Karensmart33, and came here after she mentioned this deletion in a different forum). I knew Murgy personally and can probably rustle up a photo of him, circa 1993, if it helps with the quality of his page. He's certainly worthy of a page on Wikipedia. I personally don't agree with the philosophy of deletionism, but even if you do I hope you can see that it's not appropriate in this case. Murgy is one significant member of the group of contrarian and spoof politicians that includes Screaming Lord Sutch, the Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party and (from some perspectives) Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Eric TF Bat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC).
 * As a contested proposed deletion I have restored the article on request. I believe the person who proposed deleting the article was doing it in good faith, we do get some pretty elaborate hoaxes here on Wikipedia, and the article as it stands lacks anything in the way of reliable sources--a fact which may (or might not) lead the nominator to pursue deletion if he or she is still not convinced through Articles for Discussion, so I'd definitely take a little time and add some secondary, reliable references to the article.  I am personally convinced e.g.,  (http://books.google.com/books?id=OBvwAAAAMAAJ&q=Cecil+Murgatroyd&dq=Cecil+Murgatroyd&hl=en&ei=BH7WTYaWOIymsQOn1-WxBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ).  --joe deckertalk to me 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Leo/Lev Berg
Sounds like we are on the same page regarding Leo/Lev Berg. I'll let you follow through, as you have clearly identified next steps. I hope it is that simple. -- SPhilbrick  T  16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope so too. :)   And I think you're very likely right that both Lev and Leo are in some sense correct.  Thanks!  Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with what Liveintheforests has done. The paragraphs about being founder of the Soviet Geographical Society, work with lakes, climatology, and ichthyology are now gone. Those are arguably more important than his work on a theory that has been discredited. I'm tempted to revert the change, but let's work together, not at cross purposes. Can you clarify whether that was what you intended?-- SPhilbrick  T  17:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I blew that. I just saw what you wrote over there and suggested (not having seen this yet) restoring the missing sections and working from there, but I'll slow down for a minute and let you reply before I do anything more, do you think that's a reasonable way to proceed at this point, or what would you think would be better? I'm happy to let you lead if you prefer, or (alternatively) do the legwork for cleaning up this mess to your plan. --joe deckertalk to me 17:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)  (To clarify, I'm happy with the revert solution, or the simply attempting the merge-content-between versions solution, whatever you think is more constructive at this point.)    --joe deckertalk to me 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My main goal is to make sure we don't trip over each other :). My suggestions - I'll let you take the lead on telling the editor that, despite following your suggestion to the letter, it was not the intention to remove other material which may be valid. (That it is unsourced means it may be appropriate to ask for sourcing, but not to just wipe it out.)


 * Separately, I am attempting to contact one of the early contributors to the article, so see if I can track down some issues. See User_talk:Ghirlandajo.


 * In short, if you can work with Liveintheforests to clean up the recent problem, I'll work on sourcing some of the other material.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome, will do. Thanks!  --joe deckertalk to me 18:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That worked out well. I found a few sources, so the other material is better sourced now.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, nice work, and that was a great call contacting Ghirlandajo as well. Thank you! --joe deckertalk to me 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Julie Robinson (curator)
Added references as requested, and removed tag. Will also add a referenced article on Century In Focus as soon as I get the time. BlueThird (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! The Adelaide Now article (and perhaps others) were certainly sufficient to remove the tag I placed, thanks for your efforts.  It appears another editor has tagged the article for a deletion discussion, sometime today I'll take a careful look at the sources presented and offer my opinions there, too.  --joe deckertalk to me 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you get the chance, Joe… BlueThird (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, looks like it's gonna be a squeaker: best of luck! --joe deckertalk to me 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for HYDRATION FOR HEALTH INITIATIVE
An editor has asked for a deletion review of HYDRATION FOR HEALTH INITIATIVE. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. We have re-requested this process as our initial deletion review appeared to be deleted. Many thanks.
 * Thanks! I was wondering what happened to the previous attempt to list that, I appreciate the note.  --joe deckertalk to me 15:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edwards bot
Thanks Joe--really appreciate it. Lionel (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to. Cheers!  --joe deckertalk to me 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be a little deletion happy, please study wikipedia policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist."

You did not do this for the article on Peter Loehr. A quick google search would have showed you that Peter Loeher is indeed notable, and well sourced. If I had not signed in, your carelessness would have caused the deletion of an article that should not be deleted. Please take your time to research articles and do not be so hasty to rack up "deletion points." --Feijichang (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is in reference to Peter Loehr? The relevant section is not found in the AfD pages, but in the BLP PROD guidelines, specifically BLPPROD. Yes, it is a good idea for editors to research a bit, but that doesn't remove your responsibility as article creator to provide references to reliable sources, especially in the case of biographies of living people. And please don't accuse editors of trying to rack up "deletion points"--there is no such competition, and it does not show good faith. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Feijichang, The policy you quote relates to articles sent to Articles for Deletion, it does not apply to BLPPROD nor certain other deletion processes (e.g., CSD A7.) The relevant policy for the tag I used is at WP:BLPPROD. The vast number of entirely unreferenced biographies of living people led the community to approve a process which puts the onus for making sure there's at least a single reliable reference for biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010 on the author. My own feeling is that that is somewhat unfortunate but essential for BLPs, where the potential for harm due to hoaxes, attacks and so forth is significant.


 * Policy aside, I am personally delighted that you have taken the step of finding and adding sources. And for those of us who spend most of our time at Wikipedia adding such articles to such biographies (I'm nearing 3000 unreferenced BLPs I've added sources to at WP:URBLPR), I invite you to join us there. Working together, we have whittled down an original backlog of over 50,000 biographies to (today) about 5,300--mostly by finding and adding sources. Our work continues, join us.


 * if you are looking, by the way, to keep an eye out for other articles near the brink of deletion via PROD and BLPPROD, there is a nice summary page at WP:PRODSUM. Your help in saving valid, notable articles from deletion is always appreciated.


 * Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 16:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable enough that now I'm slightly embarrassed by my reaction, but I do think that you should take a moment at least for a quick google before nominating for deletion, even via PROD and BLPPROD. With the volume of articles on wikipedia, nominating for deletion this quickly, if the original author is not on wikipedia for a few weeks, can yield to the deletion of articles that would, in the long run, benefit wikipedia and its users. Feijichang (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No embarrassment necessary, I get that it's frustrating, and why. It's my belief and experience that it actually *helps* new authors to get the BLPPROD in early, because many one-subject authors don't come back after a few days, bitten or not. That's a controversial point, and there are good arguments on both sides.
 * There's a proposal, by the way, that might make us both happier, pushing the newest article creators (pre-autopatrolled) into using an articles for creation like process. I actually believe that could be less work in total, not more, if it can constructively engage new editors, and there, BLPs won't be "published" until there's a source. Anyway, thanks for staying with the discussion, and if you're ever in the virtual area, I'll be happy to buy you a virtual beverage of choice. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 05:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the edit conflict, joe. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries, happens all the time. Thanks for the reply here, have a great week!  --joe deckertalk to me 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's off to a great start. (See also the 3RR and BLP noticeboards!) Feel free to jump in anytime! Drmies (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Prod rationale for Yoko Matsumoto
Hi Joe Decker,

In your prod of Yoko Matsumoto, you refer to the person as an animator, but I think the person the article is about is a manga artist and not an animator. I think there may also be an animator of the same name, but I doubt they are the same person. I think the confusion may have come from the Anime News Network page for the person. I don't view anime/manga websites from work, and I'm at work right now, but I think I looked at that one last night and it listed credits that seemed to be for two different people. The way ANN's encyclopedia works, when someone enters credits for a person on a page for an anime or manga, those credits also get added to a page for the name of that person. If there is more than one person with the same name, those credits will initially all end up on the same page. Once someone notices that information for multiple people are combined on one page, they can request that a staff member split the information into separate pages, one for each person with that name. So if you are seeing someone credited as both a manga artist and an animator on ANN's encyclopedia, that is most likely credits for two separate people. Anyway, since the Wikipedia article says it is about a manga artist, and not an animator, it might be good to update your prod rationale to refer to the person as a manga artist and not as an animator. Calathan (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's correct, it is in fact quite possible that there two individuals there, hard to tell. Well-spotted and analyzed, and yes, it was the ANNE entry that led me in that direction.  --joe deckertalk to me 19:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: If you can find anything reliable or helpful there, it'd be much appreciated, I'm always happy to see articles validly rescued! Thanks! --joe deckertalk to me 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/WBBM-TV news team
The closing script needs to check to see if the AFD has already been closed. At least we both agreed on the outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my run of it failed out, but I hadn't realized it had saved part of it's results. Whoops!  I'll get out of your way for a while, save that I'm reading Norman. H. Wolfe for closing, unless you've already beaten me to it.  :)  --joe deckertalk to me 00:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probable no need. After I saw you punch one at the top I headed to the bottom and worked my way up. We probably just collided at WBBM-TV news team. I'm done with the "slam dunkers" for now. I'll check on the "coin flippers" later. Also, to prevent this happening on any "coin flipper" you might be evaluating, you can place the tag on it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. As it turns out, I have to run to dinner, I'm just c/e'ing my keep rationale on Norman and then I'm off, but thanks for the heads up, and the suggestion, most appreciated.   --joe deckertalk to me 00:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

SoldierKnowsBest
Hi Joe, I would just like to know if I could get the article "SoldierKnowsBest" undeleted as Mark Watson, the host of the show, is now part of revision3 one of the biggest Internet television networks out there, he joined revision3 post article deletion, and I would just like to ask could you undelete it so I can add more reliable sources and information to the article, thanks KennyMataz 86.40.230.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Hi KennyMataz, technically, to undelete this you need to go through Deletion Review, but you're very unlikely to get the article undeleted there unless you can point at reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of Watson as required by the general notability guideline. Can you point me at the sources you hope to add to the article? I might be able to give you more constructive advice on how to proceed if you would. Cheers,  --joe deckertalk to me 21:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting an article about me...
Hey Joe

I hope all is well...

My name is James Arvanitakis and someone I know and work with wrote an a wikipage about me (you can find my work here: www.jamesarvanitakis.net)

You deleted the page about me: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/James_arvanitakis

I wanted to add content to it including links (I mentioned on other wiki entries) but found it was deleted... I had a look at the reason why and it makes no sense. Can you please reconsider the deletion (or tell me the parts you did not like)

Thanks, james — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvanitakis (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can explain roughly what happened, although looking at the article I can see a source of confusion. First some background, all of which is fairly normal and isn't why anything was deleted: There was originally an article at the page you described, later, it was renamed to a similar title but with the A that begins your last name capitalized.  When that is done, the original title doesn't get directly deleted, but instead we make what's called a 'redirect', so that if you'd gone to the page with your name with a lower-case A you'd be taken to the page with your name capitalized (I presume) correctly.
 * So, the actual article was at:
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/James_Arvanitakis
 * ..and was deleted by User:Decltype. His reasoning is pretty clear, someone else had nominated the article for deletion because it did not (in their view) provide references to reliable, independent sources (e.g., newspapers and articles) which verified the material about you in the article. That's something we've been trying to crack down on particularly with respect to biographies of living people, due to the risks of libel, self-promotion, and the like.


 * Now, in glancing at the deleted article, I do see some links, I haven't gone through and seen whether they really do actually verify information about you. (E.g., if you say you went to some school, the article needs a reference that doesn't tell me something about the school, it needs a reference from a reliable, independent source that says that *you* went to that school.)  I would prefer that you work through that with the deleting administrator, Decltype, if you would, but if you have trouble reaching him or her in the next couple days drop me another note and I'll look again, but the final deletion was Decltype's call and he'd (she'd?) be the right person to take this to first.


 * And let me emphasize this: there is *no* reasonable way you could have known that before asking me, I'm sorry this is so confusing!


 * Finally, why did my name get attached to all this, you might wonder? When the article got deleted, the need to delete the redirect (that is, the thing that took the lowercase-A version to the correctly-capitalized-version when someone types in the former) was overlooked.  When that happens, eventually the Wikipedia software notices, generates a report, I'm one of several admins who occasionally checks that report and cleans up the leftovers. Not important, but I figured I owed you an explanation.


 * I hope this is helpful; Decltype's talk page is here. I wish you a pleasant weekend.  Best, --joe deckertalk to me 05:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
For the kind words re: Red Skelton. ;-) We hope (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BEANS
Due to your closing comment at Articles for deletion/Letitia Libman, I feel myself obligated to follow WP:BEANS to the letter and do this...

Cheers! For the record I agree with your quick deletion Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Heeee!  Most appreciated.   Thanks, this was just the laugh I needed.  :)  --joe deckertalk to me 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And yay on my very first trouting! --joe deckertalk to me 03:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, now your reply has made my day. You're very much welcome... but remember that not all beans lead to the goose that lays golden eggs. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

NSW Administrative Committee
Hi Joe, If I could trouble you to undelete NSW Administrative Committee and move it to my user space. I assure you that it is notable. I am prepared to concede that the article may not establish notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --joe deckertalk to me 04:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * My pleasure! Thanks! --joe deckertalk to me 04:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP prod
I don't think you should have placed a BLP prod on Domenica Saporitti. The article assert her to me a winner of Miss Ecuador 2008; if that is the case it should be trivial to find references, and I did so. Probably this was just a lip up, because as an admin, you surely agree that nominating for deletion because of no-references  should not be a purely mechanical operation. It's reasonable to omit a cursory check  if what is asserted would probably not have references, but not when what was asserted clearly would.  DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain that I agree with your point in general (I do think there is an argument to be made for entirely automatic BLPPRODing of unreferenced biographies of living people), I certainly take your point that a national beauty queen is arguably above and beyond that bar. I will specifically take a little time and rethink my approach (my mental checklist, etc.) there. My apologies, and thank you for adding a source to the article in question. If more people were willing to do just that, we wouldn't still, after well over a year and a half, still be working down a backlog of unreferenced BLPs. --joe deckertalk to me 21:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a difficult balance to know when the work is likely to be worth it. At the beginning of BLP prod, I tried to double check every one, but eventually gave up for performers and athletes, because I was getting overwhelmed, as only one other person was similarly checking. I still do try to check all the others.   DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen your work around, and I've always been grateful for it--thank you! I do try and check BLPPRODs at expiration too for obvious "oh, this should be saved" cases, but as you say, there are so many. Hope you have a great weekend, and thanks for letting me know about my screwup. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Politicians arrested and charges with corruption
You are invited for discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1 and also Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption- . Shlok  talk. 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Thanks!  --joe deckertalk to me 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lee Baldry
Re the BLPPROD: I understood that a self-published website did not count as a WP:RS - see WP:SPS - so I was surprised to see your edit note "the one external link at time of BLPPROD placement means that this isn't a valid BLPPROD". Could you explain your reasoning? Thanks. PamD (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no worries, let me start by saying you're right, it's not a reliable source. The reason for the confusion is that the current BLPPROD policy is pretty idiosyncratic as the result of a difficult RfC, so if this all sounds a bit wacky, well, I might just agree with you. WP:BLPPROD says:
 * To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources, whether reliable or not, and in any form (references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag.
 * Contrast this with WP:BLPPROD, which says:
 * To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the prod blp until the biography has at least one such source.
 * Why are they different? Well, I believe the concerns that led to the first criteria being weak were folks concerned about the difficulty of conveying our sourcing standards to brand-new editors, and the BITE issues that arise. When sources are added later, that suggest that the original editor is still engaged, more discussion can happen, and the "removal" criteria could be stricter. Again, that's kinda my feeling of why the consensus played out that way, my own opinion is that obviously self-published sources should be excluded from consideration for nomination, but I'm limited to what the policy says--the specifics were argued about enough that it's likely to generate quite a bit of drama if I stray from the letter of it, even with good cause. --joe deckertalk to me 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Millstone Township Map
Just wanted to let you know that I made the requested modifications to the Millstone Township map. You can see the new version at File:Millstone twp nj 025.png. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --joe deckertalk to me 02:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NSW Administrative Committee Userfied
Thanks for that. Cheers, Ben Aveling 09:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! --joe deckertalk to me 12:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick Cherukuri
- Mr. Decker,

Please put back the article on Nick Cherukuri; you deleted it. Here is a press release in a newspaper about the author. http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2011/06/17/cranbury_press/news/doc4dfa36a296443155020492.txt The author's wikipedia page should exist. Thank You. Writer1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer1994 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article on Mr. Cherukuri was deleted as a result of a community discussion, it would be inappropriate for me to restore it over the consensus of editors involved. As I explain here, if you feel that the result was in error you'll have to appeal that decision at deletion review.


 * You will want to provide additional research on Mr. Cherukuri if you do go to deletion review.The link you provided, if it is as you say, a press release as opposed to a truly independent news article, would not qualify as a valid source for demonstrating notability under the general notability guideline. It is my estimation that you will have little chance of success without providing additional reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of Mr. Cherukuri. Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 18:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, having looked at the article, I *would* agree that's a reasonable news article. When you called it a "press release", that term usually means a piece reprinted after being originally written by the (say) author for promotional purposes, but that article looks decent enough to serve as one of multiple sources. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 17:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, a documented news story means nothing. Joe axed my multi-referenced story too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.81.80 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 75.58... I'm not sure who you are and which article you're referring to, but if I deleted an article and you feel that whatever I did (deleted it myself, or simply took the steps to delete an article the community decided should be deleted, as was the case above), was in error, I will gladly point you at the appropriate venues to have my decisions overturned. On the other hand, if you simply don't like the policies in question, I'll be glad to point you at the appropriate venues to discuss possible changes. I would also ask you, kindly, to read WP:AGF. Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 01:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Eliot Borenstein
-Flasfhire7: Could I please restore my deleted page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashfire7 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on Eliot Borenstein?  Did you see the note that I left on your talk page that said that I'd restore it *if* "you provide a reliable source (such as a newspaper or magazine article) which verifies the material in the article."?  Would you do so?
 * The reason that I ask so persistently in this case is that you included a negative comment about alleged mental illness about a living person in that article, without any sources, which is in direct violation of our WP:BLP policy. I can explain more if you'd like. Best,  --joe deckertalk to me 00:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jason Pramas
Dear Mr. Decker,

I'm writing to request that the Wikipedia bio entry on me be restored. Americans with left-wing views like myself aren't often afforded much attention in secondary sources these days, but such sources are available in my case, and there are also digital and non-digital primary sources that can be sent to your attention, if necessary, to fill in any gaps.

Here's your deletion note on the page in question

13:56, 13 June 2011 Joe Decker (talk | contribs) deleted "Jason Pramas" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources)

Thanks for your attention to this matter. Feel free to email me directly at jason@openmediaboston.org.

jpramas (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Jpramas, the good news: As an expired WP:PROD, that article is eligible for restoration on request, and I have done so. However, the need for secondary sources for biographies of living people is generally considered an pretty core policy here.  I do see some results for your name in Google News, e.g.,, even an result or two there that verified some facts in the article would inoculate the article against future deletion attempts. I added an reference in your article to the Columbia Journalism Review.  I will inform the editor who nominated the article for deletion that I've restored it, and they may (or may not) decide to pursue deletion through a process where the questions of whether the article should be deleted will be debated. --joe deckertalk to me 06:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Joe. I know there are places that one is supposed to watch for any debates that may arise, but I haven't had to do this before on Wikipedia; so I'd appreciate any advice on what page(s) I should be watching to make sure I can participate in any debate that may arise. And, as I said, there are secondary sources available - which I note that you started to find while I was writing this response. For example, regarding my expulsion from Boston University during the anti-apartheid movement in 1986, there's a recent (if poorly written) article in a BU student publication on a talk I gave last fall at my former school on the events leading up to my expulsion. Here's a link: http://buquad.com/2010/10/28/former-bu-activists-speak-about-anti-apartheid-movement-at-bu/ Everything else mentioned in the original article can be similarly sourced. Some sources may require digitizing paper documents, but they exist. Organizations that I worked for like the Democratic Socialists of America and the National Writers Union are still quite active and can vouch directly for my past leadership. Anyhow, onwards ... jpramas (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, Jason. The best place to keep an eye out is the article itself, there will be a box at the top of the article, not the one that's there, but the same one atop (just to pick an example) Mehdi_Abeid. From there (on your article!) there would be a link to the discussion. Save for extreme circumstances, those discussions usually last seven days, so it won't be something you have to check for ten times a day.
 * That process is called "AFD", and there's more about it at WP:AFD, but I realize our policies are thick with jargon. Please let me know if I can help demystify the process if necessary.
 * For the most part you'll have the best luck with sources that are editorially independent of you, even if they're also politically aligned, so in general newspapers/magazines will be seen as more reputable (assuming they have an editor involved, self-published books, not so much). But they don't have to be on-line, off-line references to such things are acceptable.  WP:RS may be helpful policy, and WP:RSN is a noticeboard where you can post questions like "would this be considered reliable enough for this purpose?" and get other editors input.
 * In terms of "what the bar is for sourcing", that is, what's enough sourcing to really demonstrate that an article should be kept rather than deleted on Wikipedia, WP:GNG is a pretty good page on our core "notability" policy.
 * Again, sorry to throw so much at you! Have a great evening. --joe deckertalk to me 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Jason, thanks for your kind offers of assistance.
 * Our policies were well summarized by Joe, in a note chock-full of pointers. :)
 * I'll address a specific point you raised. Unlike reporters and researchers, we don't do original research (OR), and so we cannot ask DSA to write a note on your behalf. Even were you to be listed on the masthead of a DSA publication, e.g. Democratic Left or its internal discussion bulletin(s), it would still be OR. What would be most useful would be secondary sources noting your connections with DSA or other organizations.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Kiefer. By the way, I'll be away from the keyboard for a couple of days, so sorry for any delay in replying during that time.  Best, --joe deckertalk to me 14:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Carmen Reid
Hi Joe; If you have a moment could you have look at this please. The creator removed a BLPPPROD without adding a reliable source, and when I tried to be helpul I was called a troll so I left off what I was doing. Apparently, according to  the creator,  there are lots of refs out there to the Times but Google doesn't list them for me here in Thailand. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, glad to. Sorry you had to deal with that sort of behavior.   --joe deckertalk to me 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

STICKY's
Joe, as I'm away for a while can you watch the following STICKY's, they have all been removed without a source recently. Tadd Mullinix, Daniel Guillermo Cardozo, Rafael de Assis. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, glad to! --joe deckertalk to me 17:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Plus Pimchanok Luevisadpaibul, good faith removal but not aware WP:USERGENERATED content not enough to remove a BLPPROD. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarah Lawas and Regine Villaflor. Ah, not very sticky this process. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, indeed, I'll try to keep an eye on those too. I went ahead and dug up a good enough source for Pimchanok to raise her past BLPPROD, not enough for GNG yet, so no worries if you want to send it towards PROD/AfD. --joe deckertalk to me 13:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding a source to Pimchanok Luevisadpaibul. My intention is not to AFd any of them, but to engage the creator or any page watchers to reference them so them are no longer in the UnreferenceBLP list. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In general that's my strategy too, and I don't have a good excuse for doing anything different here, save a unquantified feeling that the person was making an effort to add sources. I do think that some engagement would be good, and I'll likely go to that author's talk page and see if I can explain, maybe get the best of both worlds. Much appreciated. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Improper non-admin AFD closures
Hi Joe,

I was wondering if I could impose upon you in your role as an admin. User:Sprinting faster has made quite a few non-admin closures that were a bit dubious. I and and couple of other editors have reverted the closures, although there are some that do appear to be dead obvious that have been left untouched. Perhaps you could review them as a double check. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be glad to take a look. I see at a quick glance at least one that I reclosed myself.  I should also review NAC rules, the first one I looked at was a delete, and I'm pretty sure that's a no-no right there. --joe deckertalk to me 18:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, of the ones left closed, they all appear uncontroversial, happy to leave them stand and I wouldn't have changed any of them. If you think it would be helpful for me to explicitly endorse a few of those, I'm happy to do so, but I doubt it's necessary. Reclosed a few of the others, but between a few of them having been closed prematurely (by the clock) and included (non-policy) delete NAC closures, I think y'all's unclosures there were wise.  In particular, I appreciate the reversion of the closure on Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination), I'm sympathetic to the result, but I'm not convinced that that discussion is done, and that discussion has drama potential that makes NAC closure inadvisable. Ditto the Athletics one, but the NAC closure of HPHC2 was the one that really stuck out as having drama potential.
 * In short: well done to you, I think that was an entirely balanced response. --joe deckertalk to me 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this! -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nerimon
I have redirected Nerimon to my page about the same person, Alex Day. (Nerimon is just a username he uses on the Internet) Alex Day is a sourced article. FelixG1995 (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, good call. --joe deckertalk to me 15:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad A Agha
Re: Ticket#2011051710008172] URGENT: Deleted Article

Dear Mr. Decker,

Please repost my bio on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_A._Agha. I received an e-mail advising that it was deleted by your good-self. Please advise of required proofs to repost it and I will provide them immediately.

Best regards Muhammad A. Agha


 * It's been restored, as a proposed deletion, it was eligible to be restored on request. --joe deckertalk to me 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good addition
That was a nice picture addition you did on Geoff Farrow! --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks! :)   I came across the article and knew I had a few shots of him somewhere, glad I looked!   --joe deckertalk to me 05:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Takeshi Endō
FYI: this article that you prodded a few days back was subsequently deprodded, it is now at AfD. J04n(talk page) 16:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, it would be lovely if a source was found. --joe deckertalk to me 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi Joe. If you redirect schools could you please put a on the redirect. It helps us trace the number of nn schools that are redirected. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to! --joe deckertalk to me 06:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Bratt
Hi Joe Decker I'm Ruth Bratt. You deleted the article about me, which I'm not unhappy about at all, as I didn't write it myself. Contrary to your assumptions. I'm not sure if I am "notable" as an actress, but I do have a very nice career as one, thank you, and am not interested in self-promotion. If I had been I would have known I had a wikipedia entry which could be deleted. I am not writing this for any other reason than because someone looked me up and alerted me to your note. I have no interest in being an article on wikipedia, but just because you haven't heard of me in America, when I am working regularly in the UK, please do not assume that I am a)fame hungry, b)self-promoting or c)merely the third runner up of a minor competition. Thank you for your precis of my career.  And please do not reinstate the page.  It serves no purpose. Many thanks Ruth 82.45.196.62 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth... I won't reinstate the page (since you asked me not to, if you asked me to, I would in a moment), but for the record, the "non-notable" was a description by the person who proposed it, I'm merely the adminstrator (think "bureaucracy") who carried out the task. We have a big problem here at Wikipedia that we have some policies that use the word "notable" to mean some very particular things about amount of references within an article, and it is inevitable that the wording we use as a result comes off as unintentionally insulting.  While I didn't write the note that I suspect has come off in an insulting way, I still apologize for the way it came off.  I wish you a great career--I'm a non-notable photographer after a career change ten years ago, and I've never been happier.  All the best,  --joe deckertalk to me 21:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joe Thanks for that. I don't know how to use wikipedia talk, but am assuming that just adding to the bottom of this will add to the chat... we'll see. I have, quite honestly, had a nice night laughing at the deletion of the page - I'm not offended really, but it is always odd to read things about yourself online, many of which are unwarranted and unasked for. I wish lightness of tone came across in text! Non-notability couldn't make me happier either - anonymity is glorious. Thank you for your good wishes and I wish you the same with your photography (one of my favourite hobbies - if only I were good enough at it for it to be other than a hobby!) Here's to glorious, happy non-notable life. Best - Ruth 82.45.196.62 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth, that's exactly right, I get a note when a new message is added here, so if I'm around I see it pretty quickly. Thanks for understanding!   Cheers!  --joe deckertalk to me 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Frédéric Dieudonné
Dear Mr Decker,

I have been alerted that Frédéric Dieudonné's article has been deleted. It is rather unfaire and too few checkings have been made before doing such things. He is also a notable environmentalist (was for years head of iconography for the magazine Science & Nature) and instrumentale in Los Angeles to bring awarness about Nature to more than 50,000 schoolchildren. I know you are sensitive as we are to this cause. But beyond this, his film career as writer producer, even though it is Nature and exploration, is quite notable, and his films distributed worlwide for the last 11 years. Some comments that I took the time to read (the talks before delation) reflected a lack of education from certain user, because Dieudonné is European. Notably a comment was reporting that Dieudonne was member of the "non-notable' French Explorers' Club“. What a huge mistake and proof of ignorance to write such a thing. To become a member of this club is one of the most difficult things ever. This club, founded in 1933, has only 300 members and cannot, by its bylaws, admit more. The great majority of its member has contributed to design fundamental knowledge in our modern civilization: scientists, explorers, adventurers, filmmakers, from Thor Heyerdal to Jacques Cousteau, Neil Armstrong, Bertrand Poccard, Theodore Monod and many more of this caliber are members. So his Dieudonné for his remakable accomplishments. It is just an exemple about the fact that these talks are too much based on 'impressions' and on the degree of personnal knowledge of some of the users. However, I feel Wikipedia has the mission to bring knowledge, not to hide it or lower it to the knowledge level of a few. I use Wikipedia to learn, explore, research the World and its people. Currently producing with myself and Mrk Ordesky (the producer of the Lord of the Rings) a large Sci-Fi movie about the future of the Planet, it is quite hurting for all of us, his partners, and of course himself, to see that his existense on Wikipedia was deleted. I respectfuly request that you consider reinstal it.

Thank you for your time, and happy travels.

Sincerely,

Jean-Christophe Jeauffre, Los Ageles, June 30th 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.65.254 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I've been expecting someone to write in about this. As you already know, the article in question was deleted as a result of a community discussion which took place here.   I simply refereed the answer to that discussion, and I believe that the I correctly called the result of the discussion according to our policies.


 * However, there is a process to appeal my decision, and I will be happy to provide you some advice on how to get my decision overturned.


 * In almost every case, the question of whether an article survives such a discussion is a matter of the references available. There are several requirements of such sources. There must be a few, they must truly be different sources from each other, they must be written independently from the subject (that is, by third parties in no way connected to the subject of the article), they must be reliable sources (generally newspaper articles, magazine articles, encyclopedias, not press releases even if they're republished in those venues). And in each case the amount of discussion about the subject in the source must be significant, more than a passing mention, typically oh, a paragraph or more.  The sources need not be in English.  (Read and understand the policy page at WP:RS for more on this.)


 * For the most part, the word "notability" as it is used in our policies refers to the existence and demonstration of sufficient sources that, each individually meet all the criteria I have listed above. (Read and understand the policy page at WP:GNG for more on this.)


 * My advice? Dig up a few sources that meet those requirements, and then (and only then), file an appeal of my decision at WP:DRV.  You have made several claims of significance above, and they sound impressive, but what will win you the case of overturning my decision is demonstrating the existence of sources such as those I've described. If you do this, I believe that you will then have a good chance of getting the decision overturned.


 * One last bit of advice? During that discussion, it was apparent that some of the contributors who supported the article were in fact the same individuals using different names. That would be in violation of our policies. I'm sure you're not the person who did that, but I'd strongly recommend not doing that during the deletion review process, editors are likely to see that as an attempt to manipulate our processes unfairly and react accordingly. Attempts like that will actually hurt your case, rather than help it. Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 13:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to move Elena Siegman to my userspace?
Hello, I was looking to work on an article that you recently deleted a month or two ago. I was wondering if I could have an archived copy of it moved into my userspace so I could work on it. Thanks, Rain  bow  Dash  01:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Userfied to User:Rainbow_Dash/Elena_Siegman.  It's not a copy, it contains the article history and that should be keptl--let me know when you think it might be ready for mainspace and I'll take a look and move it back into article space for ya, I'd ask you not to cut-and-paste it back into article space to not mess up the history.  Best, --joe deckertalk to me 17:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to undelete bio of Li Xin (Activist)
Dear Joe, my name is Li Xin and I'm a human rights activist and member of China Democracy Party, Chairman of China democracy party Chicago Division. I notice that you delete the bio about me because further information needed about me. I totally understand that and I have the letter of appointment from Xu Wenli, the chairman of China Democracy Party, who recommended Liu Xiaobo to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and personal friend with Liu for decades. I also have recommend letter from him. Let me know if you need me email the copies to you.

I'm chinese so all my articles and news about me is in Chinese. However, since the GFW built, China government deleted almost all my articles and news because any articles or news about democracy or human rights is not allowed in China and will be removed in minutes after post. Our Party organized the 2011 "China Jasmine Revolution" and we have another event going now which is "Cycling for Human Rights in China" and I'm the speak man and contact person of the team.

I still have a blog survived and the address is http://www.bullogger.com/blogs/lixinchicago/ which has part of my articles and twitter "ChinaDemocrcyP" which has the updates and photos of our event "Cycling for Human Rights in China" now.

Any question, please feel free to ask and thanks for your time.

Sincerely

Li Xin


 * Li Xin: Your article was deleted as a result of the BLPPROD process. You can read more about this process at WP:BLPPROD.
 * Unfortunately all biographies of living people on Wikipedia must contain references to reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of the source. It is horrible that those references have been deleted, but if they can be verified (perhaps through the use of tools such as the Wayback Machine) , that is more than sufficient. It is fine if the articles are in Chinese, while I do not personally speak Chinese, the use of automated translation is usually sufficient to make it pretty clear if the source is valid or not.
 * The links you provide above do not qualify, as they are not "secondary" sources. I recommend reading WP:RS, and in particular WP:SECONDARY and WP:SPS, which cover the matter pretty well. I realize that it may be difficult to meet these requirements given what you've been through, but this policy does serve to help us avoid false statements about living people from entering the encyclopedia.
 * So, you will need to provide are things such as newspaper articles, magazine articles and books, and in particular those that provide significant coverage of the article subject *and* which are written entirely independently of the subject (e..g, no reprinted press releases.)
 * If you show me one or two such sources, I will likely be willing to undelete the article for you, unless there are other concerns. --joe deckertalk to me 21:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD - Yashovardhan Agarwal
Hello

First of all, thank you for your time. I had a question, I understand you may have deleted my page since you felt it was personal advertisment, I am a bit unclear how you would diffrenciate personal advertisment from a business scheme presented by a person. For example, a page based on a celebrity such as Charlie Sheen, one could see this as personal advertisment.

I needed to tell you that, I had not finished writing my page and I would apologize for this. I know I have taken my time. I personally wanted to write more about the fact that this person whose background I have finished, is about to enter the organic and health industry with produts, which are make for Arka. Arka also known as purified cow urine.

I can understand if you feel this would be under product advertisment. My main objective was not more exposure of the company but the prduct. this product is mainly for the villages in eastern countries such as India, China, Bihar. where the poverty level is high.

I meant to write this as a paper to inform the genral public with this method that could lead them into a more organic yet a cheaper method of living. they would have to spend less money on soaps and can use that money to other factors in their life.

I know I have not gone in details. this is a general ideal and I know I have not written this in my page as well. I was hoping if you could bring back the deleated page so that I could still use the background (instead of starting all over again) and then continue with more details

Thank You so much for your time

the scources are http://yashovardhanagarwal.com/images/business_plan.pdf http://yashovardhanagarwal.com/research_on_goumutra.php

Thank you again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashoagarwal (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First, "speedy deletion" is a specific term around here which refers to a different process than the one your article was deleted under, my records show that the article was deleted as a result of the BLPPROD process. You can read more about this process at WP:BLPPROD. I've changed the title of this section to reflect that, to avoid confusion.
 * While there may also be issues with advertising, etc., the primary reason the article was deleted was that it failed to include references to reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of the source. The two links you provide above do not qualify, as they are not "secondary" sources.  I recommend reading WP:RS, and in particular WP:SECONDARY and WP:SPS, which cover the matter pretty well.
 * In short, what you need to provide are things such as newspaper articles, magazine articles and books, and in particular those that provide significant coverage of the article subject *and* which are written entirely independently of the subject (e..g, no reprinted press releases.)
 * If you show me a couple such sources, I will likely be willing to undelete the article for you, unless there are other concerns. --joe deckertalk to me 21:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elena Siegman
A tag has been placed on Elena Siegman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I forgot to suppress the redirect during a userfication. My bad, I've deleted the redirect.  --joe deckertalk to me 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip Mahony
Is there any way I can get the source code for that article that was deleted. I will easily provide references for it. I had no idea it was about to be deleted. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! I've userfied that to User:ManfromDelmonte/Philip Mahony (hurler).  If you'd do me the favor of adding the references there, I'll be glad to put the article back in place without leaving an unsightly redirect.  Please, if you could, don't copy/paste it back into the main article space, this way the article history will be kept.  Thanks!  --joe deckertalk to me 22:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I got a bit jumpy and redid the article using a cache from google. I must do a bit of extra work on it.  Spelling mistakes and such.  Thanks anyway.  ManfromDelmonte (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, is there any chance you could actually make your changes on the userfiied copy and let me put that back in place? It turns out it's kinda important for us to preserve article history, it reflects the contributors copyright/license stuff. If you were to simply copy/paste your new revision of the article over the userfied copy, so long as nobody else has changed the one in mainspace, we can still get this sorted out correctly.  --joe deckertalk to me 22:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Article adjusted at User:ManfromDelmonte/Philip Mahony (hurler)  ManfromDelmonte (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, brilliant, hold on just a sec and I'll delete the mainspace copies and move the userfied ones in place. --joe deckertalk to me 22:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience, think it's cleaned up now. I have to run off, but I'll check back in tonight, let me know if there's anyting else you need a hand with here. PS:  It appears you never got notified that this was listed at BLPPROD, is that right?  If it is, let me know, I'll mention it to the editor who should have (in my view) notified you, probably an inadvertent error, but it's nice to keep track of these things. --joe deckertalk to me 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Tadd Mullinix
Hi, can you please read my message on SunCreator's talk page? This is getting awful Kafkaesque; I feel like I'm talking to automatons. Chubbles (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've got no complaints if you want to do the merge, I'd recommend simply being bold and doing it, or if you prefer, I can simply redirect the article right now.  I'd seen your most recent edit summary *and* the discussion at your own talk page but not the discussion at SC's. --joe deckertalk to me 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: You're correct, you did the original redirect, which is fine, and it's automated tools that are causing you to get messages rather than the editor who overwrote your redirect with an article. Sorry about the fuss. --joe deckertalk to me 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he hasn't responded, so I don't know if he's planning to take any action. (So far he's only communicated with template messages.) I don't really have a dog in this fight, and do not feel responsible for completing the merger, but I put the tag there for anyone who is willing to put the care and effort into it. (Someone will get to it eventually - unless the page is deleted!) In any case, I think it would be silly to treat this process in a stiltedly legalistic fashion and delete the page wholesale; Tadd Mullinix should not be a redlink. Chubbles (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy with replacing the article with a redirect, which leaves any information someone would like to merge in the history, and I will do so now. If you like, I'll explain why I disagree with your description of this as legalistic, I think you misunderstand the purpose and forces that brought BLPPROD together in the first place, but I'm far more interested in fixing the problem than dredging up philosophy.
 * I do agree that TM should not be a redlink. --joe deckertalk to me 15:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one knows that content is there except you and me, now. It'll never, ever be merged. You've painted with a sledgehammer - but I guess in your eyes you've fixed the problem. We certainly disagree on what the problem is. But enough, I think we're both over caring about this. Chubbles (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, already, actually leave a note on the talk page of the target article with a link to the information. If you'd like to revert my changes, I'll back away.  All the best, --joe deckertalk to me 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he hasn't responded, actually I responded within 4 hours despite travelling and having limited internet access at the time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Hemann
Can you explain what source in Michael Hemann is supporting any statements made about the person in the biography? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that the doi links to articles Hemann had published in "Cancer Research" and Genetics", that I'm taken to by clicking on the "doi" links (I don't have full access, I'm just working from the abstracts, etc.) were sufficient to provide some verification to the claim that he was a cancer researcher, perhaps even the phrase "cancer geneticist." Several mention his afilliation with the  David H. Koch Institute for Integrated Cancer Research. I'm surprised that I switched BLPu->BLPs based on that, but compared to some of the self-published sources I feel forced to decline BLPPRODs on, that seems primary but stronger. But perhaps I'm missing something?  --joe deckertalk to me 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at those doi's. I don't have full access either but in these caseed you highlighted the full version are available to anyone. So far as I can tell they have no information other then the name and the Authors' Affiliation of Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Is such information sufficant in your view to meet the critiera of supporting any statements made about the person in the biography? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A fair question. I don't think the affiliation with the Koch Institute is much of a big deal, but it is verified in at least one of the papers, in a very straightfoward way.  I think it's a little less clean for me to claim that there isn't a bit of interpretation on my part to take someone with mainstream scientific publications in cancer and genetics and at least see some verification of cancer geneticist.  I'm not bothered much that it doesn't go towards notability, I think BLPPROD was more about WP:V than WP:N.
 * For what it's worth, I still might have, in other moments, left the same article marked "BLP unsourced".
 * There are a lot of grey areas with BLPPROD, I have absolutely no belief that it *should* be sufficient, just that's my best interpretation of the consensus that developed around BLPPROD. If you'd like, I'm more than happy to have the question directly addressed at WT:BLPPROD (or wherever else), the rules around BLPPROD are fussy enough that I get a fair bit of yelling no matter how I interpret them, and I'm more interested in having clear guidance than I am about any particular definition of what is/isn't okay. --joe deckertalk to me 21:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)