User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 5

Bram Moolenaar
With this edit you removed what you call "peacock words" from the Bram Moolenaar article. However, this changed the message of the paragraph quite a bit - you removed the part where the vim editor is called "excellent" (and I might even go along with that for the sake of remaining NPOV), but you left the initially voiced doubts in there. In effect, the article states that it is in doubt whether vim reaches the quality and popularity of vi. This is, IMHO, misleading, as vim has long eclipsed vi in both quality and popularity. However, I am not sure what to do. I feel that either the initial doubts have to go to remain NPOV, or that they have to be followed up with a statement that does vim justice without being "peacocky". What is your take on this? -- DevSolar (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. To one of your earlier points,  while I think vim is excellent, that's not something we should be saying without more attribution/etc., but I shouldn't have left the "doubts" in there either, don't know what I was thinking.  I'm a bit slammed right now with work, but you have my full agreement to go and fix that in whatever way you believe best, it sounds like you have the right principles in mind.   Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I made an attempt but don't have that much time for a polished version myself. :-\ -- DevSolar (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2011 (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! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Barresi article
Today, more than 1 month after any revisions on an article you thanked me for contributing to, some one named 'Paul Barresi' contacted me on my Wikipedia User Talk Page. He said 'Urgent, contact me ASAP paulbarresi@aol.com' Is there any way to prevent this person from contacting me on Wikipedia ever again as he has a history of extrememly harassing Wiki users; I want and need this to stop now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Latona (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're certainly under no obligation to reply to the person listed above, certainly not via email, and it might be worth removing the email address from that message--neither you nor I have any way of knowing whether that person is the actual Paul Barresi. I thought your message there was measured, and it's always appropriate to insist that questions about an article be handled through talk pages and not via email.
 * There's no particular way of stopping a single editor only from adding a note on the talk page of another editor, however. You say that this person has been "extremely harassing".   I don't see the message you linked, by itself in isolation, as harassment, but if there's a relatively recent pattern of harassment, we can look at trying to address those with stronger measures.  But you'd have to point me at that harassment first before I could begin to act.
 * I will also leave a note on your talk page. --joe deckertalk to me 16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Trick or treat!
Hello, Mr. Decker!

I'm Josh Max and I'm a currently a contributor to Forbes.com and previously with the NY Daily News as well as publishing articles in the NY Times, Newsweek and other media for the last ten years.

I had a Wiki page that was marked by you for deletion on August 11, 2011. Since I don't keep up with my own Wiki page, I didn't know it was marked for deletion, otherwise I would have intervened.

I would like to think I am a teensy bit notable in my own way for writing, since I have made my living at in in Manhattan for the last ten years and something like 1,000 articles printed in the NY Daily News including a couple of front pages.

I would be happy to provide you with links to articles or anything else you need to prove I am Wikiworthy!

Or you may have a look at my website at www.JoshMax.com

Mr. D, thanks for any help you can give.

Yours truly,

Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.35.249 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Samed Yesil 2
Hi Joe Decker. I assume you currently have no time for this issue, I just want to say the actual thread is in the archive now. If you could tell me how to further proceed, or if I can contact someone else for this matter in case you don't want to deal with it, that would be fine. No rush though, I just don't want the issue to get lost in your archive. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathan, Sorry I did in fact get slammed with various work, it was quite unexpected.  Not bad, but I'm sorry I haven't been able to spend time looking more deeply into the sources you listed and reply.  My best advice is to pick the five or so sources you consider the most likely to demonstrate the type of coverage I suggested, and to ask for a review of the deletion at WP:DRV, with my blessing.  For those discussions the quality of the sources you present will be paramount, quantity of sources without quality will usually be counterproductive. There should be instructions there on how to file for it.  And again, my apologies for delaying this so overly long.  Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 20:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alessio Rastani
Would you consider overturning Alessio Rastani as he's received coverage outside of the first event?Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! There has been additional coverage of this fellow since the October AfD, but I don't believe that the additional coverage rises to a level that I can unilaterally overturn the AfD, I suspect notability would still be debated were the AfD started anew. I have absolutely no problems if you'd like to run this by deletion review, however, which would probably be your next step, deletion review can be found at WP:DRV, along with instructions.
 * I recommend that you research and present a handful of your strongest sources showing that (a) things have changed since the AfD, (b) that this fellow is more than a one-off news item and (c) that there is deep coverage of those multiple events is presented by reliable sources. In my experience, a handful of quality sources are more likely to "win" a deletion debate than a boatload of marginal ones. Best of luck! --joe deckertalk to me 19:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've listed the article at DRV.Smallman12q (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 

 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Please comment on User talk:DASHBot
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:DASHBot. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:POLA
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:POLA. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Joseph Farrugia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibor Takacs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thais Arriola Deletion
Would you please send me a copy of the deleted article for Thais Arriola that I wrote? If you could, please email it to me at XXXX in a word or pdf format if you could.

I intend upon rewriting the article in the future once I have more sources.

Thank you,

(Ceppards (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I dropped you an email with the source, I can't do word/pdf but I did manage the source.  I noted in the email, do let me know if you think the deletion was in error.  Cheers,  --joe deckertalk to me 00:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the "world ju-jitsu federation" page
Hi Joe,

I went to search for the "world ju-jitsu federation" page on Wikipedia tonight; I had not looked at it for some time, but it looks like you deleted it in May of last year. I was a bit shocked to see this - I checked out the deletion discussion, which seems to have taken place over about five days with contributions from three users. The WJJF is the largest jujitsu organisation in the UK and is currently represented in 17 countries worldwide; please enter the name of our federation in youtube and a number of videos will appear.

I would certainly contest any suggestion that this is not a notable organisation; we have existed for a number of years and have several hundred schools in the UK alone! I am not sure where your users who contributed to the discussion got the impression that we were not noteworthy; we would certainly disagree.

Furthermore, we are not part of a larger organisation, but are members of the All Japan Jujitsu Federation, a sort of "federation of federations" and we openly mentioned this on our wikipage. Furthermore, we are mentioned on another wikipage, "List of international sport federations". It seems strange that we are mentioned there but not considered notable enough to have our own page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeyBoab (talk • contribs) 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will therefore consider restoring the page.

Please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely, Michael MikeyBoab (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeyBoab (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael, thanks for writing. The use of the term "notable" in that discussion is a reference to a set of policies outlining in part whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on the subject, those editors were, as near as I can tell, basing their decision on two particular relevant guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:ORG.  The first is the simplest, for a subject to establish it's notability with respect to Wikipedia there needs to be multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources which discuss that topic in detail.   WP:GNG above goes into this in a lot more detail, but Youtube videos and the organization's own web site are not considered independent enough to establish notability under that guideline.  While WP:ORG goes into more detail about when we might expect an organization to meet WP:GNG, it roughly assumes that the same sort of coverage--usually articles about the subject in a newspaper, magazine, or book put through an editorial process is a prerequisite to Wikipedia's notability guideline.
 * My role in that deletion is roughly that of referee, the three editors were unanimous in their opinions and nodded to the appropriate policies. If they did their jobs correctly, they at least made an effort to search for such sources using things like Google News Archive search (e.g., ) before reaching their conclusion. However, Google certainly does not reference all reliable information, and as as you're likely knowledgable about the WJF you may know of sources which would demonstrate it's suitability under Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * If that's the case, I'd recommend appealing the deletion, which you can do by visiting WP:DRV and following the instructions you'll find there. If you'd like me to give you my opinion on any particular sources, I'd be happy to do so, but short of uncontroversial quantities of information, you'll probably need to appeal at WP:DRV. Best regards and best of luck, Joe

Hi Joe and thank you for the information; I have entered an appeal and I hope that the page will be restored shortly.

Kind regards, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeyBoab (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pauric Clancy


The article Pauric Clancy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability not demonstrated, tagged for sources since April 2008 and notability since July 2010

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 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 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. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Josh Max wiki page
Hi, Joe Decker!

Wiki records show you deleted "Josh Max" on August 11, 2011 due to "lack of notability."

I am belatedly disputing this deletionI was absent from Wiki edits for a period of time---and request Mr. Max's page be restored for the following reasons.

Josh Max has published over 1500 articles in major media since 1999 including the NY Daily News, where he currently publishes 6 articles a week--- example---

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/texting-talking-driving-law-article-1.1008733

And also publishes 4-5 times a month at Forbes.com--- example---

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshmax/2012/01/05/man-loses-memory-becomes-compelling-artist/

Finally, Max is the host of the television show "CARnivore" which aired over 10 times on the Discovery channel's Velocity network in Dec 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ro6cMNMYk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If those are not notable references - what are, sir?

Be cool to have the guy's Wiki page returned to Wiki.

Your humble servant---

Antoine

Antoine P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoinePancakes (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Antoine!
 * As it was deleted as a "PROD", it's eligible to be restored on request (at least for the moment), so I will do so after I respond here. I don't have an opinion about whether Josh Max meets our specific guidelines (I haven't done the research myself), but the sources you provide aren't likely to be considered sufficient to demonstrate that. As a result, you may face the article being deleted under another process where it'd get more discussion.
 * Let me explain what we're looking for in more detail. First, to demonstrate notability, you need sources which are *about* the article subject, not *by* the article subject. Moreover, they must do more than mention the person, but they must be articles which have some actual depth of coverage. You will want to read WP:GNG and WP:BIO (and I admit it's fairly dense reading) to learn more about the sorts of sources that will keep the article from being potentially deleted in the future.
 * But in the meantime, I should have it back shortly. Best of luck,  --joe deckertalk to me 03:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I miss BLP rescue!
They were good times! Who is keeping the backlog down, now! The UBLP number is still quite low!--Milowent • hasspoken 02:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do too!  I've been offline a lot the last month--had a photographic show opening in the San Francisco Bay area and the stuff associated with that has been very busy-making, but that was my fave Wikipedia effort ever.  I .. I don't actually know who's working that, but it's great to see that that work continues, and I'm looking forward to having some free time (probably later this month) to get my hands dirty again somewhere else.  Hope you're well--I miss you guys!  --joe deckertalk to me 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Joe Decker,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Zsuzsanna Budapest
I'd like to ask about the logic behind your deletion of most of this article based on a copyright issue from 2008. This article has been totally rewritten in 2009. I mean totally; the article had been stripped down to about 3 sentences, and since rebuilt with new, properly cited text, wikified, section included, extensive bibliography and references supplies, and as the result of the work of quite a few editors it has no resemblance to anything that might have been objected to or even existed at that time. please review the article and its timeline and see whether this is true, and reconsider deleting almost the entire article including non-controversial data like bibliographies. It seems to me that you have deleted the very material that eliminated the problems you are reacting to. I ask you to look further into it. Rosencomet (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. My only concern is copyright.
 * It does sound (based on your comment re: the bibliography) as if I may have messed up setting the appropriate scope for that template too. After finishing this comment I will immediately review that and limit the tag to a smaller portion of the article if that is the case.
 * Unfortunately, it is very problematic for Wikipedia when WP editors note a potential copyright violation, as happened in (was in 2008? on the talk page) unless the problem is completely addressed, article history included.
 * I will see if I forgot to "close" the scope of the marked area, and again, you are welcome to rewrite from scratch the material that I'm actually concerned about.
 * I'm working from an offsite terminal and may have a hard time quickly responding until 24-48 hours from now. --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, you were correct, I forgot the close-div tag there. My apologies for the error, I do think there's an issue that needs to be addressed, but the scope of that tag was overkill.  Best regards, --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made several changes; some deletions of repetitious material, some re-writing, some elimination of data that was either trivial, non-encyclopedic, or outdated, and some re-arrangement of text for readability. I think I have taken care of the real issues; there is still some duplication of phrases with the article indicated, but it's unavoidable since some of those "phrases" are book titles or organization names and such. Please review this work and determine if the problem has been substantially taken care of. Rosencomet (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I appreciate your efforts, thank you, I see that you've put work into trying to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, I'm still concerned, and am going to leave this in the folks who investigate copyright issues, their experience with these issues is greater than my own.  It is my understanding, and I'm quoting from the section in the copyright tag here, that "Simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be cleanly removed or the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.)".  You don't have to take my word for this, though, if you'd like another set of eyes on this, one thing you can do is to find and contact one of the administrators who regularly processes copyright tags, I know User:Moonriddengirl used to be one such but has taken on other responsibilities, etc.  WT:Copyright problems might be a constructive place to ask for assistance. Again, thank you for your efforts at improving the encyclopedia. --joe deckertalk to me 18:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Ryle
Please reactivate/undelete the page. The notoriety of this person ('s article) is stated in Cognitive Analytic Therapy. Deleted via PROD procedure. Quote: Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT) is a form of psychological therapy initially developed in the United Kingdom by Anthony Ryle.
 * ✅ As a contested PROD, the article was eligible for undeletion.  By the way, the "notability" criteria here, and questions about it, usually come down to not so much claims of notability as evidence of notability provided by independent coverage in reliable, third-party sources.  I've added what appears to be one such source to the article, you may wish to find and add one or two more to forestall future deletion attempts by other editors.  Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ben Jones (American cartoonist)


The article Ben Jones (American cartoonist) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Tyler Cassidy
Hi

I have been looking at the possibility of compiling a Wikipedia article on police killings in Australia, comparable to the list of police killings in the US. When I looked for a well known recent case I noticed that you had deleted both an article on Tyler Cassidy (shot by police in Northcote) and the reference to him in the Northcote article. I am puzzled because in both cases the reasons you gave did not fit the situation.

You gave the notability policy as the reason for deleting his name from the Northcote article, but as I commented when reversing, that policy relates to whole articles, not to name mentions within articles.

When I restored the name mention, it had a link to an article you deleted in 2010 citing "(Expired PROD, concern was: fails WP:VICTIM)". However the boy was not a crime victim.

This is a very well known case in Australia, covered extensively in our media. Is there some way I can restore the deleted article?

Prosopon (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Howdy,
 * Thanks for your note. First, as a proposed deletion, the article Tyler Cassidy is eligible for undeletion on first request, and I'm going to make the logical assumption here that you'd like that.  I'll handle that immediately.
 * The entire text of the article involved at the time of deletion was "Tyler Cassidy was a 15 year old boy who was shot dead by Victoria Police in an incident of Suicide by Cop. He is believed to be the youngest person to have been killed by Police in Australia." The article contained absolutely nothing in the way of references, categories, or other text, at the time I deleted it.
 * As a matter of pedantics, WP:VICTIM applies not only to victims but also to perpetrators but also individuals who commit crimes, and suicide is actually a crime in many jurisdictions.
 * But that wasn't my reasoning for alowing the proposer's rationale to stand, even though WP:VICTIM might have not been as precise a rationale as I would have given if I'd written the rationale myself. One of the points of WP:VICTIM is taking care, much as with WP:BLP, in how we handle individuals known for a single negative event. While Cassidy is not a living person, the reasons for this policy include not only concerns for the harm of living people but also people close to the deceased. (See also: WP:BDP.) As a matter of spirit of policy a completely unreferenced article about a recently-deceased individual making an unreferenced negative claim of any sort (whether suicide is illegal or not in that area) about living or recently-dead individuals is almost always inappropriate on Wikipedia.
 * Anyway, if you can deal with those concerns, I've got no particular concerns with the article. You may wish to also discuss the article with User:Usb10, who initially proposed the deletion and who provided the original WP:VICTIM rationale. --joe deckertalk to me 19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: You may also wish to review WP:BIO1E, which may suggest that the article be renamed to an article on the death/shooting of Cassidy, rather than as a biography. --joe deckertalk to me 19:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed
Input is needed at a law-related RfC. I selected you at random from the list of editors at the RfC Notification service. If you are too busy, or not interested, please disregard this notice. --Noleander (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel
The proposed deletion of this article has run its course, but I don't know the procedure to close it. Even the nominator now votes Keep. Please review it and either close it or refer it to the proper person, if you would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Siegel_%282nd_nomination%29 Rosencomet (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rosencomet. (Great user handle, btw.)   In general an admin will come around to close it, generally at the 7-day point, which for this discussion would be the 22nd.  No further action on your part is necessary, a few of the AfD-watching admin pay pretty close attention to the "about 7 days old" pool of discussions.
 * While early closure is permitted in a limited number of cases (e.g., if the nominator has withdrawn and nobody else has argued toward deletion), in my view this is a little borderline for an early or WP:SNOW closure. See the commentary at and near WP:WITHDRAWN for a little more on early closures, etc..
 * Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 00:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: The 7 days have expired, so I've closed the discussion. Best,  --joe deckertalk to me 20:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD
You recently closed this AfD, and it appears as if you may have only deleted the redirect to the main article (since it was moved during the AfD). The main article is FICGS (Free Internet Correspondence Games Server). Take a look when you get a chance. Thanks! &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thanks for the heads up! --joe deckertalk to me 19:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin
Hi. I just saw that you had closed this Afd as keep. But to be frank, all the people who opted for keep have had their concerns addressed, and the last one seems to have did the same thing the others said, excluding the fact that the user who nominated it for deletion had disruptively nominated some other pages. But, that actually does not necessarily apply here, if I'm not mistaken. Could you kindly go through the discussion again and review your opinion? Thanks and regards.  Secret of success  ( talk ) 17:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the discussion, and find no real way that I could argue for any consensus other than keep, even no consensus seems a stretch, and that wouldn't be sufficient to delete the article.
 * In my view, the participating editors appear aware of the general principles of the relevant notability guidelines. I am also aware that their !votes may seem in conflict with some of those guidelines, due to the lack of "in our hands" in-depth sourcing. I have observed in my time at AfD that there's a consistent support for making limited allowances in notability discussions of non-BLP, historical articles, one might think of it as an allowance for the presumed existence of harder-to-find offline sources. Such allowances are, by their very nature, somewhat subjective. While I might personally have !voted differently, I don't believe that the pattern of discussion I see in the article is sufficiently far from AfD precedent that it's appropriate for me to discount the weight of the keep rationales. You're completely welcome to have this discussion reviewed at WP:DRV, if you wish, I don't mind at all. I appreciate your concern, and your note.  Thanks, and kind regards,  --joe deckertalk to me 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I guess ultimately it turns out to be that a vote from a certain point of view cannot be justified beyond a certain limit with its opposition. I think that was the reason WP:VOTE is just a guideline. Thanks for your help.  Secret of success  ( talk ) 05:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!
Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding
 * Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
 * Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 April 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: That Template
Joe_Decker,

I went a head and made that change to my template. It definetly looks friendlier. Thanks for the suggestion! @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ►  Moon Base Alpha  -@ 18:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, I'm glad you liked the idea! (And hey, I didn't know we had an article on the commercial and meme! ) --joe deckertalk to me 06:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA - and for your congratulations. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! --joe deckertalk to me 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Today's theme
Why does this picture bring Mrs. Tynsdale-Clyde's tea to mind for the second time today? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * *sporfle*  Now there's a fine wake-up!  ;-)  --joe deckertalk to me 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel
You have been so helpful in the past, I wonder if you could look into a problem I am having with the Bernie Siegel article. IMO, it seems to be under attack. It was nominated for deletion (unsuccessfully) as non-notable, even though the subject is a famous best-selling author that has been interviewed on many prominent shows and is regarded as a major proponent of theories related to the mind/body relationship. His status as a "best-selling author" was attacked even though he has had two books on the New York Times Best-Sellers List, one for six years. Now there is an attempt to characterize him as a "former doctor" and/or take away his label as Bernie Siegel MD. Except for doctors whose degree has been revoked, there is no such thing as a "former Medical Doctor"; it is an academic degree, and you are an MD, PhD, BA or BS forever. I've spoken to two doctors about this, and they agree. Every Google hit, every article I can find, every website describes him either as Dr. Bernie Siegel or Bernie Siegel MD. He has also been described as "unlicensed", for which there is no evidence. Even dead doctors are referred to as MD, BTW, though their licenses can hardly be in effect. It is my opinion that these attacks may come from a lack of respect for the field he is best known for, and the fact that it is often associated with New Age groups. Could you look into this? Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it may require a serious amount of wading in, I hope to be able to do so Wednesday, but may not be able to any earlier due (work calls). I'll be happy to look in once I get a chance to put more than a couple minutes together here, you might also with to consider WP:BLPN in the meantime.  Best, --joe deckertalk to me 05:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The MD issue appears resolved, yes? If there are systemic problems that make you think someone is trying to unfairly make biographies of living people negative, that is an issue to bring to WP:BLPN.  In cases where someone's practices are non-traditional and/or controversial (which may be the case here), there will often be a fair bit of give-and-take, but in the end, the best solution to editing disputes is usually many eyes.  Of course when I'm around I'm glad to look too, but sometimes multiple eyes are even more effective.  Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 02:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:More footnotes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:More footnotes. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --joe deckertalk to me 03:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Page Updated
Hi Joe, you edited my article for references. Just came here to say I have added reliable references. Would be great if you take a look at it and remove that warning thingy you have placed. Madmuckraker (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, looks like somebody already beat me to it. Thank you for adding references!  Best, --joe deckertalk to me 02:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Agahi Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Daily Times


 * Arshad Sharif (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Daily Times

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

✅ Thanks, Mr. DPL bot. ;-p   --joe deckertalk to me 02:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Scott Hill
(Note: This was found several months after-the-fact a the subpage User Talk:Joe Decker/Deleted.  --50.0.92.60 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

Hello Joe,

I am Scott Hill, the american/british dual national composer you deleted on 13 June 2011. I realise you have a difficult job deciding what is or is not notable or verifiable. However, I feel that your deletion based on lack of notability is incorrect. In comparison to the other 2 "Scott Hill"s listed in Wikipedia, my work has had far more exposure to the global audience than Scott Hill (rugby player) or Scott Hill (rock musician). Not to sully the reputations of the other people with my name, I assert that just 1 of my credits, "Sinarah" on the "Lois's Birthday" episode of "Malcolm in the Middle" has been heard by several 100's of millions of listeners around the World.

I could list multitudes of examples of my work in film and television, but my business associate and friend Ken Snyder has already spent a good deal of time and effort to compile the salient points of my career on the page "Scott Hill (Composer)". I would appreciate it if you would "undelete" this page and offer recommendations to improve it.

I realise that there may be many improvements which could be made to the page, and am willing to make improvements from suggestions from other contributors. I also want to create a new page for my record label, "Ambient Worlds" and the artists I represent there. Hope you had a productive and creative photographic trip!

Yours sincerely, Scott HillScottahill (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

MayanSocks
MayanSocks (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)I hope my removal of the citation did not cause too much of an inconvenience! I plan to add it later, but I removed it from that section as I believe the info cited did not clarify that the subject of the article is a Mexican painter. Thanks for the feedback!
 * Oh, not a problem at all! Cheers!  --joe deckertalk to me 00:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)