User talk:Joseph2302/Archives/2016/January

Matt Hobden
Thank you for kindly including me in the DYK nom for Matt Hobden. As I did very little, I have now done a bit more, including trying to give some sort of answer to what will be most readers' obvious question. Edwardx (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the contributions to the article- I included a few users who had all made a few edits to the article, since in combination, all those edits helped massively. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Cubli page deletion - Further clarifications
Hello Joseph2302, I am new to editing in Wikipedia (I'm sure it's obvious) and I was trying to understand exactly why the Cubli page I created recently was deleted - from the messages I am trying to understand whether it was because of the way it was written, or the website of one of the links that contains a YouTube video that appears to have a duplicate version under a different publisher which was causing some sort of copyright infringement? Perhaps the deletion was due to both?? In any case I want to understand more clearly so that I can remedy this and avoid future mistakes. Is it possible you can clarify this further, or help point me in the right direction on this? Thanks, and apologies for my beginners mistakes! Skullbound (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's because large chunks of the text were direct copies of other websites, which is a copyright violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City Oval, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alistair Cook. 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) 09:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to 2015–16 Premier League, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. The URL here wasn't correct, check it next time! Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Mircea Itul
Please let me know what exactly is promotional in this information. Please don't be rude and unprofessional.

Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairec78 (talk • contribs)

All things being equal, the fact that two different Administrators deleted 'your' page in the space of twenty minutes is probably indicator enough of its erroneous nature. Can I also remind you of the requirement to sign your posts, comme ça... ~. You should probably read WP:CIVIL with a smidgin of WP:NPA, as unfounded accusations of unprofessionalism etc etc, fall well into those categories. Ciao! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  06:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, always sign your posts and assume good faith. As for the article, it was just a list of achievements and complete list of his books and essays - this is exactly what you'd see on a CV/resume, not Wikipedia.
 * if you want to recreate the article, I suggest using WP:AFC, and also :
 * Write in continuous prose, not bullet points
 * Find reliable sources to support everything you write
 * Cut down the list of books and essays top about 5-10 most notable ones

Regards, Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Joseph2302 on this. A résumé or CV (curriculum vitae) is inherently promotional. It serves to promote the professional services of the person. Wikipedia is not the place for such a document. For a biography of a living person, we need visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not the place for personal attacks.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to The Proud and Damned. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. If you're going to try and help people by moving page, at least check properly if the page move is correct!!! Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lemi Clothing Ltd.
This article clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines, and it was speedily deleted only a few minutes ago then immediately recreated. Just to let you know, I've also started a related SPI case (as two editors seem to be jointly removing deletion tags etc and neither has edited anything else!) Mike1901 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks- the article is clearly just worthless spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick on the trigger
This tagging occurred too soon. A single sentence article, only four minutes old, should not have been tagged for deletion. The author might have created the first sentence merely to create the page, and could have been in the process of expanding it. Finding that tag on their article could have discouraged that expansion. As a general rule, you should wait until the article has been idle for at least 15 minutes before tagging for deletion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted the tag. No predjudice against someone readding the tag when the user doesn't edit it though. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And Lo! -it came to pass... that the tag had been correctly added, as the article's subsequent A7 demonstrates Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Autoblocked

 * I'm trying to edit at the British Library, as I'm using the British Newspaper Archive. However, their IP address, 194.66.226.95, has been blocked by, the reason being it's repeatedly been used by a banned user. I am not that user. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now doing some editing via my phone, but would still like to be unblocked at the above IP address. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a coincidence. I'm over at Senate House! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Need help with autoblock above please. ASAP would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm unblocked now, thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, my apologies for the inconvenience, and I'm glad to hear it's been sorted out while I was away. The IP in question has indeed been used repeatedly by a rather nasty attacker, so unfortunately it had to be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The block was completely understandable, so I have no hard feelings for being blocked for a few minutes (after all, I just used my phone for that time to edit).
 * By the way, does the unblock apply every time I use this IP address now, or do I have to request unblocking every time I use this IP? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be permanently fixed. From what I've seen, Elockid changed the block from a "hard" to a "soft" block, meaning that logged-in editors will be able to edit normally. If problems should recur (maybe on some neighbouring IPs that might be similarly affected), we could set your account to "ipblock-exempt". Thanks for your understanding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central Recreation Ground, Hastings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Leonards. 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) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoring Cyberjustice Article
Hello Joseph2302,

Thank you for your comments with respect to the article I recently submitted. I realize that it was deleted, but I was wondering if it would be possible to restore it so that I could make the corrections suggested, as I really worked hard to put everything in the Wikipedia template and if I could avoid having to do that again I would really appreciate it.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

NVermeys (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I am not an administrator, so cannot restore content
 * 2) It was deleted as a copyright violation. Copyrighted material is never permitted in Wikipedia, so no admin would restore it.
 * I recommend starting again, writing in your own words, and using reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Joseph2302,

Thank you for your response.

However the sources that were said to have been copied were in fact laws which were paraphrased and (at least in Canada where I am from), laws are not copyrighted. Regardless of this fact, however, the laws in question were paraphrased and properly cited.

I am rather new here, could you perhaps guide me as to who I might contact so as to explain this to and who might be able to restore the page?

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

NVermeys (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * was the deleting admin, so I'd recommend trying to contact them. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I checked the copyvio. There were very large chunks of text copied in verbatim, and it stood out in red in the copyvio checker. If you're going to paraphrase the laws, it's going to take more work. You can also do a direct quote if it's not too long, and put it in as an attributed and linked blockquote. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 15:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and the help!

Out of curiosity, and to ensure that I fix all the issues with the article, were there any other things that were highlighted in red in the copyvio? Or any other issues that would need fixing?

Thanks again!

Best regards, NVermeys (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ollie Robinson
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for City Oval
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mark King (artist)
When an article is as fluently promotional as that, it's usually a copyvio, and this one was indeed a straight copy of his website. Moreover the article author who protested that it was not promotional is evidently the gallery that sells his work. Spamublocked. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, glad to see another spammer is indeffed. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Industrializācija Liepājā
I fixed the link with this edit. The problem is that the template provides the brackets; it doesn't expect them in the parameter. —teb728 t c 04:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Response To Speedy Deletion
Hey Joseph,

Two things:

I noticed that you deleted my article, and read all of the literature that you linked. In hindsight, I can see why you deleted it, but would like to point out that it was very similar in nature to an article called "toilet paper orientation". I'm just curious what makes my article (controversy over banana peeling) different than toilet paper orientation (controversy over toilet paper). If you could clarify that for me, that would be great.

Also, I tried to respond to your section on my page, but it doesn't seem like you saw it. If you could tell me how to tag a user so that they'll see a section, that would be really helpful.

Thanks, Schuddeboomw (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it, I justg nominated it for deletion. There's no evidence that controversy over banana peeling is covered in depth in reliable sources- on the other hand, there appear to be 133 reliable sources about Toilet paper orientation. So, Toilet paper orientation passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines, whereas banana peeling does not. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for clarifying that. I'll try to remember that when I create other articles.

Schuddeboomw (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dermaflage
Hi Joseph, Thanks for taking a look at the recent wikipedia page "Dermaflage." I've made some edits and to the best of my ability have removed all non-neutral language/content and any references to sales figures or where the product is sold. Would you be able to take another look and remove the speedy deletion tag? If not, what further edits can I make to make the article comply with Wikipedia standards? Thanks, EvanEvkatz4 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been adequately answered at the teahouse, and I agree.
 * Also, in future, please add a level 2 header when asking questions on my talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"SPA"s
Why are you tagging the posts of editors who post on your Talk page with tags? First of all, their editing histories make it very clear that these are not SPAs. Secondly, the only reason to tag an SPA is when there is some significance to the fact that they have not or have only rarely edited elsewhere, e.g., in a deletion or other discussion where the neutrality and/or identity of the poster is in question. As WP:SPATG explains, many editors unfamiliar with the tag's purpose will find it highly offensive, and it is essentially uncivil and a violation of AGF to go around tagging other editors as such when the conditions do not justify it. Please give this a bit more thought.  General Ization  Talk   00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Their editing histories as linked by you show that both have only ever contributed to 1 article each (plus edits to talkpages/Teahouse about the 1 article)- this is the very definition of a SPA. And it's my talkpage, so surely I can do what I want- tagging them as SPAs was meant to be a visual reminder to me that they're new editors, so I might need to explain things more clearly to them.
 * It made sense to me at the time, although I can see how people may find it offensive or unhelpful. So, I'm going to remove them. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review this guidance (some emphasis added): "The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." The completely uncontroversial discussion with you on your Talk page is not the right venue for this, and yes, you can do what you like on your own page, but if it is a misuse of a template and potentially offensive to other editors someone else can certainly point it out to you.  Thanks for removing the tags.  General Ization   Talk   01:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I already read that page more clearly, and realised that this wasn't the context in which to use them.
 * Thank you for the advice. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 06:39:09, 29 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Aagreeny4
Hi! Thanks for reviewing my article. I was wondering if you could help me with my references, can you tell me in a little more detail why my references aren't adequate? Such as why they are not considered independent, reliable, and have significant coverage, or can you point me towards an area so I can research more/other articles that have these?

Thank you, Aagreeny4 (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Aagreeny4 (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * They are all just passing mentions of him, from what I can see, no evidence of significant coverage as required per WP:GNG. Also, your name implies a conflict of interest. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the articles used, the entire article is about him, his message, and his work and they go into detail about it. Is it because the articles are not online? Yeah I noted my COI on the talk page and in the beginning of the article. Aagreeny4 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Offline articles are fine, if they do indeed show notability.
 * On the other hand, editors with COI may not post on my talkpage, so closing this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)