Can you please stop PROD all these NFL player pages? They all pass WP:Athlete as they have appeared in professional NFL games and also have sources in the infobox. More sources would be nice but all these players are notable so there is no reason to PROD.--Yankees10 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: Ok, will do. However they keep coming up as having no sources. It would be best if the you could get the Unsourced tag removed otherwise you will likely keep running into this issue. JBH (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to add sources to some but there is a bunch.--Yankees10 22:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember any older PROD's you might have had that were NFL players?--Yankees10 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: Here is a link to my PROD Log. I used Twinkle as an easy way to see if BLPPROD could be used and to keep a log. I just started going through the Unsourced BLPs to clean out dead wood. I will stay away from pre-2010 sports BLPs (those that do not fall under BLPPROD) since it seems the sports editors have some sourcing consensus. Sorry for the trouble. JBH (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: Here is one I did manually Tomaso Luis Volpi

Your'e probably right about IMDB. Though I kind of just assumed most actors are notable. Doing just a quick google search for those two, show they may not. In regards to Malaret i'm also gonna go ahead and assume winning Miss Universe is an automatic notable. I could be wrong but it would be best to AFD than PROD these anyway.--Yankees10 00:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: OK, I see where you are coming from. Right now I am PRODing the unreffed/unsourced articles that no one seems to care to get up to spec or look like vanity pieces. The ones that someone objects to will give me a list to go through and either find references for or AfD. I know it is kind of a deletionist strategy but there is an awful lot of BLP crap hanging about and PROD is an easy way to get the low hanging fruit. JBH (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get what you are doing, but I'd suggest you also don't PROD people that have won any major awards. For example Richard Bohringer won a Cesar Award, which is apparently the French equivalent of the US Academy Awards.--Yankees10 00:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: Will do. Thanks for the input. JBH (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: Is Pro Football Reference RS for football players? I'll go through and add some refs to get rid of the Unreffed tag on some of these guys. JBH (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much point Prodding a Commonwealth gold medallist (or indeed a silver or bronze one). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Who was that? I have been keeping away from sports related articles since the above conversation. Maybe one slipped through. Sorry. JBH (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

Hi, please do not apply BLP prod tags where a reference does exist, but the link is dead, without checking archive.org to see if an archive version of the link exists. This applies to Nou Sam and Dul Koeun. Also, one of these you said was non-notable -- this is from a series of politicians who all served in the national assembly so they are notable per WP:NPOL. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1: OK will do. Sports figures and politicians really caught me out because if the extremely low notability bar and RS requirement. JBH (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to go through some old articles like this to fix deadlinks. Agree re the notability/RS issues. I think we hugely include sports figures but clearly I'm in the minority. For politicians, I think it's a fair assumption that national-level politicians have significant coverage somewhere, but for developing countries it may not be easy to find.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition to the above, pleased do not add unreferenced BLP to articles that do have references, which you did here to Jacob Larsson, which is referenced. It also seems that you didn't check Tom S. Englund before PRODing; the supposedly dead link is working, so it was referenced. While it is good to keep track of deficiencies existing articles, it does seem to me that you need to be a bit less trigger-happy in applying PROD templates. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomas e: The way I understand sourcing a bunch of links to the subject's web site do not meet the sourcing requirements for BLPs. Tom S. Englund has nothing but a link to his own web site. I do understand your input and have already stopped doing anything with sports BLPs like Jacob Larsson (yes, that one was just careless of me. There might be a couple others from the beginning as well but I worked with User:Yankees10 to track those down and also fix some of the Unsourced American Football players.. see above) and politicians. Their notability and sourcing requirements seem low to a silly degree but that is WP policy so I will stay away. I will take more care in the next batch.

The search I am using looks for BLPs with pre-existing Unsourced tags so in marginal situations I am proceeding on the assumption that another editor felt the article was unsourced. If you have a better strategy for clearing away some of the BLP dead wood here I would like to know. I agree I was less diligent than I should have been at the beginning of this first batch but will and have been taking greater care. JBH (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE should apply to any deletion. You cannot trust that an unsourced tag means that it really is unsourced, nor that a BLP unsourced tag means that it's even a BLP anymore. Many tags were applied months or years ago, or even by a bot, not an editor. I think your accuracy rate is probably 20% or lower. Google, Archive.org, other Wikipedias (for references in them, not as refs) are all things that should be done before placing deletion tags on articles. What is "BLP dead wood" to you is someone else's hard work and interest. I don't know a thing about Thai singers, but when it says she's won awards and sold millions of records, do you think it's right to delete the English version, especially when there is a Thai version with a ref? Let's not add to the WP:systemic bias problem. The-Pope (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The-Pope:I will admit to taking Big Red Buttons like these [1] [2] and their instructions naively seriously. I have modified my behavior. If you are interested this is my follow-up worksheet to improve/AfD/ignore contested PRODs. JBH (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so accepting of all of our concerns, and not defensive like so many other deletionists have been. I think those delete a BLP buttons are awful. If you want to review by topic, look at the "by cat" links on https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/cwb/. It updates weekly (the ones I look at seem to get updated on Tuesdays), so it may be a bit out of date by now, but every week, a new list to correct an incorrect tag, reference, PROD or AFD. And speaking of incorrect tagging, specific external links, ie to an individual's stats or faculty profile website are refs, the {{no footnotes}} is one of my favourite tags to add. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Puliyoor was previously up for a afd so I had to remove the BLP prod. You can make another AFD if you must. Wgolf (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf:Yes, that error came up when I placed the tag. My removal edit conflicted with your removal. Will read AfD but likely will not AfD again. JBH (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: I looked through the AfD. I can not for the life of me understand how that was closed keep. The two articles listed as possible sources [3], [4] virtually identical so are not independent of one another and talk more about his medicated herbal hair oil. Do you have any information on any of the awards that might make him notable? I can find nothing. JBH (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-no not really. I often have more problems with the articles about people from India then any other ones though for some reason. Wgolf (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I will look for more sources and if I can not find any I will AfD him. Thanks for the input. JBH (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised soon after I actually made the mistaken ping. No harm done, I think.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just did not want confusion. Cheers. JBH (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just noticed you marked this person as a BLP-be sure to check the dates in the article first-it said he died in 2007. Richard Geller (physicist). (I just took off the BLP sources tag) Anyway good luck with the patrolling also! Wgolf (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf:Oooppss... Thanks for catching that JBH (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jbhunley!

really newcomer here, and all seems to me so difficult... Let's hope to do a good job in here.

Thanks for cookies and welcome!

Cheers SaraSaraProntera (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SaraProntera:You are quite welcome. If you have any questions please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Here are a couple links that might help How to edit talk pages, Common policy misunderstandings. Enjoy! JBH (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley I am just wondering maybe if you could, help me out a bit since I am new to creating and Editing pages. Thanks Bobizcul09 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Bobizcul09[reply]

@Bobizcil09: I can try to answer questions you might have, just ask here. The best place to go for in depth help is Wikipedia:Teahouse, they specialize in helping new users. A good place to start learning how to edit is Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. Also, here are a couple unofficial essays How to edit talk pages, Common policy misunderstandings. Cheers. JBH (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooppss misspelled your user name. pinging again @Bobizcul09: JBH (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HI I have a question about KHHT real 92.3 fm as of today they have changed their call letters from KHHT to KRRL and I wanted to know is it okay for me to change the call letters to KRRL in the article or how dose that work? I don't want to mess up the article thank you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert L.Hill (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert L.Hill: What you need to do is find a source, like a newspaper article that says that the call letters changed. Then you make the change and cite it to the the source. For something like call sign change I would say it is OK to cite the FCC database. In general it is best to not use primary sources but you can always be WP:BOLD. PS Remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ the Wiki software will insert your user name, the date and time.

Enjoy! JBH (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L.Hill (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) thank you for your help I will look for a news source and then make the change[reply]

User:ILikeCheese01450 "hi Jbunhley it's ILikeCheese01450 you left a message on my talk page, but i was wondering, how do you submit a draft for a review?" - moved from my User Page. JBH (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ILikeCheese01450: There should be a link in your article User:ILikeCheese01450/sandbox that says Submit your draft fro review just click it and go. Also when you leave messages you want to use the User Talk: page not the User: page. If clicking the link does not work for you let me know. Enjoy! JBH (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed he was notable as book author (8 editions of Comic Book Checklist, 5 of Standard a catalog of comic as well as multiple comic book software programs.) article deleted before I could even update references. New to Wikipedia--can you clue me in on what was deficient in the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoncross17 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasoncross17: Now that the article is deleted I can not see it or its history but an admin can. However to be speedy deleted at least two people (the nominator and the deleting admin) must think it meets pretty strict deletion criteria.

An author needs to meet notability criteria per WP:AUTHOR and there need to be reliable independent third party sources that discuss him specifically. User generated content, blogs and catalogs are not acceptable sources. If you can find sources you need to use them to support a claim of notability. This will at least get the article through CSD. If he does not meet the notability criteria the article will end up at a more prolonged process, Articles for Deletion. JBH (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Two questions:

- if I were to add in cites for his various books, etc. does that answer importance criteria? (He was one of the creators of Krause Publications' line of comic price guides, as well as a book on interface design for Apple--There were already cites for the software program and systems he created). His co-authorship of the various comic price guides was alluded to, but not directly cited in my original draft.

- Is there a way to retrieve the original entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoncross17 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying what he has written is not enough. The essence of Wikipedia's notability criteria is that the subject of the article must be discussed by independent third parties in what we call reliable sources. I do not know anything about comics but the place to go to find people who do is Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. As to recovering the text of the original article any admin should be able to get it for you. The deleting admin was Keegan. You can ask for them to userfy the article at Keegan's Talk page.

Also, as you collaborate here there are some basics for using talk pages that are not really intuitive, like indenting and signing that you need to know. This is a quick unofficial guide to get you started - How to edit talk pages it has links to the more detailed official stuff but it should be enough to get you started. Please let me know if I can be of additional help. Cheers. JBH (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to notify user of reply - pinging @Jasoncross17:. JBH (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It is I, AscertainMasquer. That being said, I wish to converse with you on the matter of an article. I'm writing a page for the graphic novel/manga titled Horimiya. However, this is my first article and I would sincerely appreciate help from anyone you know. Could you offer me some advice, or perhaps refer me to someone experienced in these matters? (AscertainMasquer (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hello @AscertainMasquer:. Manga is way outside my area of expertise. We have a special WikiProject for manga where there are people experienced in those articles. Plus there are a lot of resources and information there. That being said all articles must pass general notability guidelines or in the case of books the notability guidelines for books. This notability must be documented by citations to reliable sources which are generally independent third party sources that talk about the topic. Self published and user generated sources can sometimes be OK to cite in the article but never for establishing notability. It is best to get your sources together before you start writing. When you start on your article you should write it either in the Draft: space or in your sandbox. If you need some help setting either of those up just let me know.

I hope this helps get you on the right track. If you have additionalc questions or need some help getting around Wikipedia just let me know. Enjoy! JBH (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jbhunley: Thanks for responding so fast. I already have it in my drafts, not publishing it yet, and I just wanted some one to go over my work and help out with stuff like suggestions, etc. Thank you so much, that is exactly what I needed.

@AscertainMasquer:If you give me a link I will take a quick look at it. Also, just FYI here is a link to get you started with using talk pages. How to edit talk pages. JBH (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The View...I have never used Wikipedia before and i appear to have got things wrong so apologies, i would appreciate your help in amending my entry. Theviewsw1 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Theviews1: That you are willing to learn from your mistakes is a great start! :) There are a couple of issues that I locked on, the biggest of which are your username and the you creating a page about The Views apartments (or whatever they were I am going on memory). First off Wikipedia does not allow user names that may be considered promotional or that might be seen as being used by multiple users. The second issue was creating an promotional article/placing promotional text on your user page, that is never OK. Links to or mentions of businesses on user pages is considered spam here. As is promotional material anywhere on the site. Please see our policies on neutral point of view. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory or web host. When you write about a subject think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it.

If you want an article on your business/employer you should read Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest. After that you need to see if the subject passes out notability guidelines. To do that a subject must be covered significantly in independent, third party, reliable sources. PR material, blogs, user generated content and passing mentions do not document notability. The general view here is if something is significant enough to have an article someone not associated with it will write it.

My suggestion to you is to read the links on the welcome message I just posted to your talk page. You should also read our user name policy it discusses appropriate usernames and how to go about changing your username.

Give that material a read and feel free to ask me any additional questions you may have. Welcome to Wikipedia! JBH (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was your reason for marking my username as promotion. Instead of marking a new user you should help inspire others on how to use this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubsforthenight (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Clubsforthenight: Looks like we crossed in editing. I left a comment on the question you asked on your talk page. The short answer is that since our user pages are indexed many, many people try to user promotional user names or put promotional links in. Wikipedia does not permit this and considers it spam. Your username was the same as a web address you put on your user page and could be considered advertising. An administrator has to agree with my tagging before the page is actually deleted and you can simply remove the link and note that through the contested deletion button. See the links to policies I put on your talk page. I will also place a welcome message there with links to help you out. JBH (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your flagging a short encyclopaedic and neutral article about a product for speedy deletion was unjustified. These are real subjects for the public to learn about. Please, go and read an article on any product and post the g11 tag there too. Just because it is a product from a small firm you feel that it shouldn't exist here whereas things like the new iPhone or the latest games console are OK? This is basically saying popular things are worthy, and lesser known items are not, thereby maintaining the status quo and entrenching knowledge of large corporations at the expense of small firms. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margarine123 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Margarine123: Please read Wikipedia's policies on notability. Before something can be included in the encyclopedia it must have significant coverage by independent third party reliable sources. Press releases, self generated content, blogs and such are not good enough. We also strongly discourage editing on a subject you have a conflict of interest in. Such as a company you own or work for. Undisclosed paid editing/advertising is also covered in our Terms of Use which I invite you to familiarize your self with of you have not already done so. JBH (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my notes this was in reference to Hushe A-CES Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulator. JBH (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed you've made several speedy deletion nominations to a userpages, particularly the one about User:GeorgiDane (because that is the one that I came across). I have to say that I disagree with this nomination. You've nominated the page for speedy deletion under two criteria, U5 and G11. However, neither of these criteria are suitable for that page. The first criteria, U5, refers to pages that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. The user was trying to create an encyclopedia article, therefore the page is definitely related to Wikipedia. Many users draft their articles in user space before moving them to article space, so this is totally fine. The second criteria, G11, does not apply because the page was not unambiguously promotional, and contains encyclopedic content. While writing autobiographies on Wikipedia are discouraged, they are not strictly prohibited either. Speedy deletion nominations to user pages can also be bitey and rude towards new users, and I feel many of your speedy deletion nominations are quite unnecessarily harsh towards them. I also find this nomination to be unsuitable as the article is neither about a person, nor is it having an attacking or disparaging tone. Please pay closer attention to the criteria for speedy deletion, and take care not to be too harsh with new users in the future. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if the message above is too rude, I couldn't think of a nicer way of leaving a message about this. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darylgolden: No worries, not rude at all... Thank you for bringing up your concerns. While I understand what you are saying I must disagree on several specifics. While George Dane may be an acceptable topic writing the article on a user page is completely unacceptable (see WP:FAKEARTICLE. When I tag a user page for similar issues I use two templates Userspaceuse, Place-uw-autobio to try to explain what the issue is. If you can suggest additional or better wording I would really appreciate it.

I considered the Ecoprombank CSD very carefully. While I do agree that it is a judgement call, I explained my reasoning on the talk page of the article. It made several claims about criminal activities of named people without backing them up with sources. This is in direct violation of our BLP policy. I could not edit the article to take care of the BLP issues so I nominated it as CSD. Maybe there was a better way to handle it but there was no clean version to revert to.

I keep a log of all of my CSDs so I can come back and see the result. On the ones that declined or otherwise resolved (like this one) I keep a copy of the resolving edit summary. This helps me ensure I am staying within the consensus definitions of the CSD and modify my behavior if it slips away from consensus. (right now I have had sixteen out of about 300 CSDs resolved with something other than a delete or delete/block). Again, thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I hope this helped address them, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. I will certainly remember to exercise care when dealing with CSDs. Cheers! JBH (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have to thank you for staying resilient and continuing editing despite the multiple attacks by new users here. I do still disagree with your first CSD though. WP:FAKEARTICLE does state that articles should not be "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles" but it does mention "indefinitely", implying articles staying on userspace forever without intention of creating it as an article. However I do believe that the new user is trying to work on the article on user space before moving it to article space. In addition, it also states that "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable". I think the best action you should take when dealing with userpages similar to my example is to move it to draft space, and place Template:Userspace draft on the page, which addresses the concern of the article being hosted in userspace indefinitely because drafts that are unedited for over 6 months are deleted under the WP:G13 criteria. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darylgolden:

TL;DR - Thank you for your continued concern. The Ecoprombank was deleted G10. While the CSD of Georgi Danevski user page would not have resulted in a delete the user who moved it caused more problems than they fixed including loss of the talk page and leaving the user in limbo by not following up with them. PS And... They are blocked for violation of username policy: User:GeorgiDane

In general I agree with you. When I run in to a situation you describe I use Template:Sandbox msg and/or Template:Userspace. I like your suggestion to mark as userspace draft. I in fact did miss a legitimate article in user space and miss mark it once. When the reviewing admin noted this I apologized to the user and told them how to set up a sandbox and directed them to How to write your first article Which I think I will add to my 'sandbox' template.

In the specific situations you brought up we must agree to disagree. The Ecoprombank article was deleted by the reviewing admin as G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP.

The Georgi Daneveski situation was a complete hash. First when (user name) = (article name) there are very few situations I will not tag it as promotional material from a promotional user. In fact this article was written by his publisher and "posted by a third party". I would give you diffs for those quotes but the editor (not reviewing admin) who moved the article "to avoid CSD" made such a hash of things that we lost the content of Draft talk:Georgi Danevski when I asked an admin to restore the muddle of redirects that were created.

In this case I will agree that Georgi Daneveski was a bad CSD tagging. If it had run its course and simply been declined by an admin I would apologize and it would be done. The ham fisted move that was done left the creating editor in limbo, not knowing what to do because the moving editor did not contact them to say what to do from there. So I had to deal with the editor, I had to contact an admin to clean up the mess not the drive by editor who subverted normal process.

As I mentioned above please feel free to check my CSD log. There is a link there to all of my CSDs that did not result in delete and/or block. I make errors just like anyone else and it is good to have people to point them out so I can learn from them.

As to the users I have interacted with about their CSD's here two actually changed their usernames to something non promotional and will likely become productive editors. One got his article un-deleted and userfied so they can improve it. The others were annoyed spammersMy favorite is the one who wanted to un-OVERSIGHT 5 files!. There are also a few help requests resulting from 'Welcome' templates which I am always happy to see. Again, thanks for the input. Cheers! JBH (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darylgolden: I noticed what I said above. " While George Dane may be an acceptable topic writing the article on a user page is completely unacceptable". You were right to jump on me for that. I do know users sometimes write articles on their user page. It was the USERNAME = ARTICLE NAME that I found unacceptable because it is always promotional ie advertising. Sorry for jumping down your throat. What I said and what I meant diverged quite a bit and you can't I hope :) read my mind. JBH (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Help Request[edit]

The above discussed move has resulted in an editor's user and talk pages being turned into redirects. I not familiar with what to do to get their pages back in proper order and I do not want to risk messing up the page histories. The pages in question are: Draft talk:Georgi Danevski - User talk:GeorgiDane and Draft:Georgi Danevski - User:GeorgiDane. (Would just deleting the redirect and recreating the page work or is there more to it?) Thank you for the help. JBH (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I've deleted the redirect from the user page (so they just have a blank user page now), and I've moved the draft talk page back to the user talk space (as it wasn't meant to be moved to begin with). That should mean things are back to normal now. Lemme know if there's anything I missed. Swarm ^X 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JBH (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JBHunley

The Wkipedia entry created for the Pistoia Alliance was set up as there is already a reference to it in the section on HELM (Hierarchical Editing Language for Macromolecules) and as such I thought it would be entirely appropriate to add a section on the wider work of the Alliance. I fail to see how this is overly promotional and as to your comments regarding it being of no value, then surely the pages for the many companies included in the page, eg GSK, Roche, etc, should all be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistoia Alliance (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pistoia Alliance: Please see our policies on notability. A topic needs significant coverage in independant third party reliable sources before it is included here. Press releases, company literature, blogs and such are not used for determining notability. Also, please see our user name policy and our conflict of interest guidelines. JBH (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've removed the speedy tag you placed at Edita Mildažytė, as the woman is a nationally known television presenter in her country, so this credibly asserts notability. You can take it to AFD if you wish. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dai Pritchard: No problem, my error. JBH (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jbhunley, apologies for that. Can you please let me know what qualifies as an unencyclopedic image? Can you please point me to the wikipedia guidelines regarding such? I felt that the images were of encyclopaedic in nature. I don't mean to offend, I thought it was issue caused by a bot problem. But perhaps a discussion would be in order before making a judgement and deleting, right? I thank you for your understanding. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jbhunley, I just saw this "*anyone's* passport is completely inappropriate." I understand your concern, however I have received written permission from the subject now and new scans in black and white from the subject too. Which I forwarded to the emails to the appropriate department that deals with permissions. One of the passports is already terminated and now the other has the passport numbers blacked out. I feel they are important for the article as they are of historical significance I believe. They play role in claims made by the subject of legal and historical significance. So believed that they would be well put there for this purpose to shed more light on the law and history concerning it. If I may say they are more like historical illustrations of sorts in keeping with their use in the article, and only serve to bring light to certain interesting and little know knowledges for the greater community. May we discuss it a bit more before you take a final judgement? I hope you may be able to see it from this point of view. once more I appreciate your time in the matter. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

योजनबुद्ध - The issue is that they are completely inappropriate, would someone's passport photo be in Encyclopedia Britannica? Permission is irrelevant Please familiarize yourself with all of our policies starting with our policies relating to living people. This is not a subject where there can be any debate or discussion. I reported the first image to WP:OVERSIGHT and they suppressed it> That is the most drastic thing that can be done with respect to content and is reserved for very few things. I reported the other images and expect the same result. Most things here are up for discussion among editors but once it goes to OVERSIGHT there is no more debate if they choose to remove it. I see now that the images in question have been suppressed. The take away from this is do not upload these images again. JBH (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean but I always thought the beauty of wikipedia was that it was not Encyclopedia Britannica. I understand their concerns. I wont reupload the images. Though is there a way for me to get in touch with the oversight people to discuss it further? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

योजनबुद्ध - You can go to WP:OVERSIGHT and use the methods of contact found there but the chance that they will reverse their action is pretty much zero. The purpose of OVERSIGHT is, among other things to -

"1. Removal of non-public personal information... Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information."

You just can not get much more non-public than a passport. You can not put such stuff here even if the person wants to. Your argument that it is somehow a source makes no difference see WP:BLPPRIMARY. If an independent third party has not written about something in reliable source it does not get into a biography. Even if the article in question survives AfD the content will need to be drastically pruned to get rid of all of the unsupported puffery. I have directed you to WP:BLP above, I also recommend that you carefully read policies on notability, policies on verifiability, policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view. Read these for the principals they contain not to see how you can justify what you want to include. Experienced editors have likely seen all of the pedantic arguments to try to get around these policies. You need to remember that these policies are used to define describe principals and policy will not be used to subvert principal. JBH (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your reply and guidance. I am still learning the ropes here still, ofcourse, so its good to get advice. I just find the subject and history very fanicinaitng, and have put a great deal of research and effort into the matter, and kept it all as neutral as possible. To be honest who ever created this article a couple years ago had done an average job on sourcing and writing. I feel after much work on it the quality and sourcing is much improved, would be a shame to lose such remarkable information now. All the best and thanks for the lessons. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the error message. Is that what you wanted? Deb (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: Thank you! JBH (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your welcome and supervision. I hope this is the way you look the message in the UserTalk. I sent you a message because I didn't realize this possible way. Basically I want send you my gratitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.206.117 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mantapiamartinez: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for the thank you :) I will post a link to two essays I wrote for new users on your talk page. The first is on how to edit talk pages and the other is on common policy misunderstandings. They are just my take on things so are not policy but they do provide links to the actual policies/guidelines as well. I hope this helps and feel free to ask me questions. Also please remember to sign in to your account before editing and to sign your posts with ~~~~. Cheers. JBH (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I work in Public Information at The American Society of Mechanical Engineers and began editing the organization's profile on Wikipedia. I am registered with a password. I entered minor edits, which showed initially but are now reverted. Any ideas as to what I am doing incorrectly? John VarrasiJ (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VarrasiJ: Well I see a couple big issues right off the bat. The first is that you have a conflict of interestfollow link for policy on the article and should not be directly editing it at all. What you should do is propose edits on the talk page and let other editors decide if they should be implemented.

The second is that you did not cite any references for the changes, here citing reliable sources is everything - it is not what you know it is what you can prove. And, third. The un-cited edits are marked 'minor'. That is a red flag to other editors. The only things that should be marked as minor are edits that change no information or meaning on the page. Many people (not saying you) try to slip changed through as minor edits because a lot of people have their watch list ignore minor edits. I know we all should assume the good faith of our fellow editors but some things editors have found through experience need more assuming than others. Substantive edits marked minor is one of those things. It is better not to mark an edit minor unless it is a spelling correction In some articles not even that!

I hope this helps some. Please let me know if you have further questions. JBH (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the speedy tag you placed at Shweta Taneja, as it does make a credible assertion of notability. You can take it to AFD if you like. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits indicate that you are happy with knee-jerk finger-trigger-like reactions. I don't mean that in a positive sense Round here yeah (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Round here yeah: Would you care to be more specific? Or do you mean where you redirected Suniphile, Suniphilic and Suniphilia to Suni Islam? Those were completely inappropriate edits. If you would care to point out some other place I have been 'trigger happy' please do so. JBH (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L.Hill (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC) hello I have edited a couple of radio stations hope the formats are right on KWIN the format was mainstream urban not true the station format is rhythmic top 40 and on kssx 95.7 kiss fm san diego the format said it was rhythmic top 40 when actually the format is Rhythmic contemporary basically the same thing. but if I'm editing wrong please let me know Thank you and thanks for taking time out to read my comments to you ... im still new and learning ... have a great day...[reply]

@Robert L.Hill: Hi Robert! I am glad you are getting the hang of editing here. I don't really know anything about commercial radio stations so I do not know the difference in the formats. In general when you change something non-trivial on a page you do one or more of the following. If it is easily explained like changing text around, leave an edit summary saying what you did before you save the page (I set my preferences to always remind me to leave one). If it is something like changing the format leave a note on the talk page saying why you changed it, others can then discuss it if they disagree. Finally cite sources. You can do this as by adding a reference/footnote. Pretty much everything here is decided by reliable sources.

I would say the two most important policies to really grasp for basic editing are reliable sources and neutral point of view assuming you are not writing about people then it is WP:BLP once you really understand how those work everything becomes much easier.

It looks like you are doing great. Keep in mind if someone reverts you, ask them why on the talk page. Usually is will relate to sources or point of view and discussion and collaboration between you will give a better article than either working alone. Remember not to take any of it personally. Most people here want to build a great encyclopedia so they defend what they think it right but will change their mind with proper sources. Just remember to be prepared to be convinced of the other person's position as well.

Great to have you here and thank you for helping build Wikipedia. JBH (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it intriguing that you keep a log of CSD nominations and then remove or modify those that are denied. For example User:Nuprl, which was nominated for speedy deletion by me (User:EoRdE6/CSD log #60), yet it appears on your successful CSD log, and your unsuccessful nomination of User talk:Nuprl doesn't appear anywhere, not even on your hidden User:Jbhunley/February CSDs resulting in other than delete... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And then you craftily edit it and make it look like you were the one who deleted it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: Damn you are an accusatory person. Have you seen anything on my talk page that looks like I would not respond to a polite question? Chill out. Try asking me like a human being. I am not trying to hide the error. Here is where I owned up to is on User:Coren's talk page after you reverted the CSD notice there.

Since the log bothers you so much here is a diff making everything letter perfect. Yes, I should have annotated the change but I did not think to. The links to deleted pages exist so if one goes blue again I know to check it. You could have accomplished the same with a polite note.

The purpose of the log. As it says at the very top is to track my judgement about what needs to be deleted and what does not. I mistagged the talk page instead of the user page. Damn, ooppss. The user was still a spamuser. The logs are for my reference. From your comment it sounds like I stole your lollipop or something. Wikipedia is not an MMORPG and I am not trying to steal your points

Why did change my link to read successful CSD LOG? Nowhere do I call it such. It is the regular Twinkle CSD Log that I annotate with errors in judging bad pages not oh shit I pressed the wrong button. I have removed entries I tagged then quickly reverted as well but otherwise that is a list of all of the CSDs I have done. Also why do you refer to my 'CSDs resulting in other than delete' as "hidden" it is linked to right at top of the fricking page. In my opinion that is much more "clever" editing than I have done. JBH (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would point out the user has been unblocked and his changing his/her username, try to have good faith. Also your obsessive tracking of your CSD's and which one went wrong is what intrigues me, almost as though your planning evidence for an RfA, in which case accidentally deleting a talk page instead of a user page would be considered a problem... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6:Thank you for letting me know.

Assuming good faith does not stretch to someone who jumps to accusing me of being deceptive. Good faith it a two way street and linking WP:AGF after your initial posts does nothing to increase mine. While your comment "almost as though your planning evidence for an RfA" pretty much uses up the last of your quota. Never ask someone to assume good faith when you show none. I will assume you meant AGF in the user not in you. So I will strike and apologize.@EoRdE6: JBH (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for an RfA HaHaHaHa... While I have been reading the 'production' side of Wikipedia for years, I have been actively editing here for about 2 months and doing CSDs for, let me be precise, 9 days with the exception of 3 on 7 Feb and 1 in 2012.

I use the many log files to make sure I understand what I am doing and follow up. I started doing so because I really messed up doing PRODs when I first started so I began tracking my actions, so I could improve, ignore or AfD the ones I messed up. That is what the 'Main' scratchpad in the menu at the top of the log pages is. I, like everyone, make mistakes and I like to make sure I can learn from them even if it requires, as you say, "obsessive tracking" of my actions. JBH (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries, just wanted to let you know what happened. I do agree with tracking CSD's and PROD's, honestly that feature should be built into MediaWiki for non-admins... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6:OK... all good. Thanks for bringing up your concern. I will be extra careful in my log annotations. Seriously though. If you ever have an issue with something I do/have done just ask me straight out. I may or may not agree with you but it cuts way down on ambiguities and misunderstandings by removing the subtext. It will also cut down on my prose. <g> Cheers. JBH (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got your message about nomination of this article for speedy deletion, but there's not tag on it for me to contest. Please advise. Pkeets (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkeets: No need to contest it. The reviewing admin has declined the nomination - (declined speedy - there may be enough around to warrant keeping). I miss read some of your text as the "Agatha and Anthony Award" and thought what the heck is that?? <g> instead of Agatha Award and Anthony Award. I blue linked them in the text.

I still think the article needs some citations to reliable third party sources to vertify her notability. Right now, based on the article and a brief web search, I do not think the article would pass a WP:AfD review. Cheers. JBH (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Pinging again, forgot to sign. @Pkeets: JBH (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]