User talk:Jokestress/2017

A Pie listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A Pie. Since you had some involvement with the A Pie redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Joh. listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joh.. Since you had some involvement with the Joh. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ja. listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ja.. Since you had some involvement with the Ja. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2J


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 2J requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Adotchar | reply here 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hemovanadin


A tag has been placed on Hemovanadin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://books.google.com/books?id=yxdrAAAAMAAJ&q=%22separable+by+dialysis+and+sedimentation+in+the+ultracentrifuge%22&dq=%22separable+by+dialysis+and+sedimentation+in+the+ultracentrifuge%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie346SlIXSAhXoilQKHRxuCXcQ6AEIJTAA. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KDS4444 (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ciao - sorry to see this - and the angst it caused you enough to write for BoingBoing about it. We're discussing it somewhat in the 'wikipedia weekly' facebook group, if you'd like to join that and join-in? https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/1233164846731344/ . Sincerely, Wittylama 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing the article here and the one there. And thanks for sticking with the project even when mistakes get made and someone else is sloppy. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Boingboing
Andrea, I find it really disappointing that you twisted an oversight by a deleting admin into a narrative about the "fall of Wikipedia". You're an experienced editor of nearly 13 years, there's really no excuse for you to not have known (the deleted page also mentions it) to quickly leave a message on RHaworth's talk page, where they would have fixed it in a second. Admins are fallible; while they should have checked the page history, they slipped up for this instance. Instead of resolving it with them and chocking it up to a one-time thing, you decided to inflate it with an "extinction event" because it fits a certain narrative.

Yeah, cuz deleting violations of copyright, a serious legal issue, has anything to do with deletionists. You mention lack of safeguards, but a message was posted on your talk page informing you, all it would have taken was you to use any of the various dispute venues. "The same thing has happened to articles I wrote...", the exact same thing? Yeah right. A really disingenuous and disgusting hit piece from you, sad that I have to edit alongside such people. Stuff like this causes more damage to the project than any actual deletionists. Opencooper (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's true that the CSD criteria are often misused, though. Jokestress just happened to pick one of the more clear-cut examples, but there are many others. Notice how long the article stayed deleted, without anyone noticing. It shows that once the original author is no longer active on the project, her legacy of contributions is in jeopardy. In the case of deletions, only a few hundred sysops can even review the history (and I'm not even talking about the text of deleted revisions; just the history entries) so there's a lack of the kind of transparency that would be needed for effective oversight.


 * Want another example? Okay, look at the cultural decay article. Articles that in times past would've been sent to AfD or at the very least gone through a one-week proposed deletion, and potentially been reviewed by multiple editors, are routinely summarily CSD'ed. St. claires fire (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason "only a few hundred sysops can even review the history" (the actual number is ) is that the deleted material contains copyrighted material, personal information (outing) and all manner of spam and vandalism. If we allowed everyone to access the deleted material, then anyone could use Wikipedia as an alternative to Pastebin. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of Hemovanadin
Re: Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance:

The deletion of Hemovanadin was against Wikipedia policy. Copyright violations says


 * "If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version".

Wikipedia gets a lot of cut-and-paste copyright violations, and keeping up with removing them is a tedious and thankless job. That does not excuse failing to check the page history as required by Wikipedia policy.

That being said, when the article was deleted, it was replaced with a notice that says:


 * "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below."

User:Jokestress, you did not contact the person who deleted the article, nor did you report the problem on any noticeboard, nor did you click on our help button and ask for help. Instead, you went straight to Boing Boing and posted your complaint. When you did, the improper deletion was quickly undone, just as it would have been quickly undone if you had let someone know that there was a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (The Joe Rogan Experience) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating The Joe Rogan Experience, Jokestress!

Wikipedia editor TheSandDoctor just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for writing this and sorry that it took so long to get reviewed!"

To reply, leave a comment on TheSandDoctor's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Vardaraj Shetty for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vardaraj Shetty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vardaraj Shetty until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Harriet Grant


A tag has been placed on Harriet Grant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Harriet Grant for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harriet Grant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Harriet Grant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

At UChgo, but long before your time
Hi Jokestress, and much appreciation for all your good works to help WP and its readers.

As my user page shows, I started on WP a year after you, but at UChgo long before your time. I was in Physics, while my wife, Sally Richards, was kingpin secretary for the English Dept, 1964-1968, say, under Catherine Hamm and Dean Gwen J. Kolb, Jr. She typed a lot for Prof. Norman Maclean, as in A River Runs Through It, and Prof. Raven I. McDavid Jr, as in "gully-washer" and "goose-drownder". But you're more likely to have overlapped with Al Bates.

Anyway, I'd like women to have about equal power with men (dividing humankind crudely into women and men). The article matriname is mostly my work. I fight for time to write more on WP, which I enjoy, such as a long-term goal to bring that article more toward Good Article status. Now I'm doing a little on Lucy Stone League and on Matrilineality. And I recommend the book Mrs Man, by Una Stannard, 1977, for its excellence overall and its wit -- it only costs $0.75 + 3.99, used. About all the work that you do, all I can say is WOW! Trying to help our readers, For7thGen (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of James Privitera for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Privitera is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/James Privitera until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of arteries for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of arteries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of arteries until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Disturbing the peace
Hi, I'm Edaham. Jokestress, thanks for creating Disturbing the peace!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page history is confusing and as a new page reviewer I did what I thought best to disambiguate and clean up the situation.

The issues were that:
 * the page had been created about the legal issue
 * on at least one occasion an author had tried to edit it with content related to a secondary use of the term (a novel or film etc)
 * there exists another page Breach of the peace where the article about the legal issue has been moved.

therefore I have


 * 1) turned disturbing the peace into a redirect to disturbing the peace (disambiguation)
 * 2) moved the contents about the Ai Wei Wei film to Disturbing the peace (Film)
 * 3) added the film to the DAB page
 * 4) changed the primary link on the DAB page to redirect to Breach of the peace

I can't imagine that this hasn't caused issues and it would help immensely if we checked carefully for errors now that this has been done.

I've also tagged the article my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Edaham (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Dance Of Death (film)


The article The Dance Of Death (film) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of notability, no reliable sources since creation. A Google News search for the Vietnamese title didn't bring up anything that looked helpful to me."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Huon (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)