I have resolved your speedy deletion request for Janetta Rebold Benton by adding the appropriate copyleft statement to the original website. Please remove your request.

@Verminator04: - Please read WP:COPYVIO for more information on Wikipedia's policies copying text. An administrator will take a closer look at the page. What you place here must be written in your own words, not copied from another site. I would also recommend that you take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ Jbh (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: - My edits are in compliance with the Conflict of Interest guidelines, and the appropriate copyleft notice is in place, ensuring compliance with the reuse guidelines. I have also reworded all text, ensuring that the content presented is 'in my own words'. Thanks. Verminator04 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_the_Skin_(album) You should have deleted the article. I was forced to recreate it as a blank article to unfollow it which makes no sense of why Wikipedia does this. It was already deleted for duplicated of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_the_Skin_(Of_Monsters_and_Men_album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JKruger13: Only administrators can delete articles but thank you for the information and for noting it is a duplicate on the talk page. An admin will follow up on the tag. Also, you can go to Special:Watchlist and choose 'edit your watch list' to un-watch a deleted article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Thanks.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: What is this

@JKruger13: - It is a way to tell an editor they have done something dumb that they really should have known better than to do. See WP:TROUT. Some people do not see the humor in a good trouting but I prefer it to some other ways people can express their displeasure. The template {{troutme}} placed at the top of your talk page makes the little icon you clicked on. Some editors place it there to let others know they do not mind being trouted to remind them of what they should know :) Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

aww okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have my references posted and i'm posting more as I go along. the article is valid as this is for an up and coming musical artist with growing profile and fanbase. give me a break b.

@Temp144: I removed the BLPPROD becuase it looks like Pitchfork is a RS. Please read WP:MUSICBIO carefully to see criteria for notability. Based on what is in the article and what I have found on a quick search the article likely would not pass AfD. Probably the easiest notability criteria to meet is if they have a song which has charted on a national chart. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Page Has Provided the references of interviews and biodata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.58.250 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create that page-I moved it without a space. Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: Thanks for letting me know. I'm using Twinkle to do the CSD notifications. I guess it sees moves as creates, interesting... I will check the history and notify the creator. Jbh (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've declined your speedy at the Beluga article (and the Coren bot's notice too) because both sites acknowledge that their text comes from Wikipedia. Your one even gives the full CC and GFDL bit at the bottom of the page. Mirrors and quotes are often a problem, but the WikiSnap does say at top of page that it's stuff from Wikipedia, and a look at the bottom provided the CC licensing. The other one started with ", so I scrolled down to the next " and found '- Wikipedia' at the end. On a side note, I've seen one of the current Belugas on the ground, and oh boy, was it big... I'd never heard of them, but thought it looked whale or porpoise like, and was interested when the person I was talking to at the airfield told me it was a Beluga and what it did. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peridon: Thanks for the note. New articles with text from Wikipedia mirrors have caught me a couple of times now - the cognitive dissonance of new here old there but from here throws me :) I will make sure to click through from the links Earwig's tool kicks out.

That must have been an impressive sight. Those two tiny looking engines do not look like they could get that thing off of the ground! Jbh (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it was a copy - of Airbus Beluga. I thought the wording looked familiar. It was the earlier article I'd read, and I was sure I had read it here - after seeing the plane. As to the plane, it's weird with that enormous blank 'forehead' and the little (by comparison) 'eyes' and 'nose' down at the bottom. It doesn't have all the seating, loos and floor storage that the airliner version does - cutting a lot of dead weight out, and most of the cargo has a lot of space inside it, so what it is lifting is volume not bulk. Peridon (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is asking for advice I am not prepared to give. If this question refers to a particular person's situation they should discuss it with their doctoral committee . Jbh (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Jbhunley! I've noticed the context of the discussion from talk:discovery of the neutron about the use of wikiarticles outside wikipedia. What is the legal status of such uses? Does it involves plagiarism sometimes?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I am not a lawyer so I would advise reading the license or consulting a professional if this is for anything other than curiosity. The license Wikipedia content is provided under allows reuse and re-publication as long as copyright is acknowledged. Other institutions may have policies which prevents use of Wikipedia content and it is never OK to use it without acknowledging its source. See Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License for details. Jbh (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for answer. It is mainly curiosity. In this regard, is it possibile/probable that a plagiarized PhD thesis with wikicontent (of that specific article) occur? In what way and to what extent would the inclusion of a wikiarticle in PhD thesis by an editor to that article be plagiarism?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] That is way too hypothetical and also way outside of something I would feel comfortable answering. In general accusations of and policies relating to plagiarism are handled by the individual institution, professional society or journal where the content was published. For matters relating to a doctoral dissertation I would contact the relevant department/college of the university in question or its Dean of Students. Jbh (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps some/most universities officials/regulations are unprepared for such possibility of using wikicontent, this is unexpected and challenging for them. The other aspect you've mentioned is not very hypothetical considering cases of plagiarism like those of Victor Ponta, Pal Schmitt, and zu Guttenberg which come to my mind. (It is true however that they haven't used wikicontent, but they could very easily have.) In this circumstances, how should an editor who intends to use wikicontent to which has co-contributed proceed? Should he stop contributing to wikiarticles in order to avoid all possible complications?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jbhunley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wetpour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, not eligible for A7. Will PROD instead. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much Amina-daily (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amina-daily: - Thank you! Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid looks like quite a remarkable fellow. Glad to help out. I will keep him on my watch list and if you need any assistance please feel free to ask. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Why you remove my Wiki? 小玉 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@小玉: Thank you for the barnstar! I tagged the article Zion Lee for spedy deletion because it made no credible assertion of importance and was about a person. Please see out general notability guidelines for the criteria for an article on Wikipedia. I tagged Zion Lee again after it was recreated because it was a cross name space redirect to Wikipedia:Zion Lee, The Wikipedia name space is not used for articles. It is for material relating to the Wikipedia project. If you have any other questions of would like some help please let me know here. You might also want to read WP:FIRST it talks about how to create your first article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Although we disagree on what the outcome of these AfDs should be, do you not agree we could get better input by bundling the Dethcentrik AfDs?-BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusyWikipedian: In this case no. Albums and bands have different notability criteria WP:NALBUMS and WP:BAND. Each of the albums have different sources to be addressed although there is, in my opinion, no way those albums come within a mile of passing WP:NALBUM. One or two reviews, even in RS, does not constitute significant coverage and a couple of the albums do not have even that. Bundling would, as I read it, have them stand or fall as a group. Even if Deathcentrik passes AfD all that means is that the albums are not eligible for db-a7 not that they are notable. Jbh (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying why they cannot be bundled-BusyWikipedian (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	How i want to create Zion Lee's Wikipedia? I hope somebody help me to create his Wikipedia, please! 小玉 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@小玉: Thanks again for the barnstar but there is no need to leave one to leave me a new message you can just reply under your previous comment or add a new section at the bottom for a different question. How to edit talk pages gives a quick introduction.

The most important thing you need to establish for your article subject is notability. Out general notability guidelines set out those criteria and there are special criteria if they are a musician, scholar, athlete etc. The Wikipedia Teahouse has a group of volunteers who specialize in helping people get their first article done and explaining all of out policies and guidelines. Cheers Jbh (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think you care, just mentioning because I meant to drop you a note first, but then forgot to. Duh. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: No problem, it was not an improper request and I left a note on the Workshop talk page so the Arbs would know it was OK both parties. I hope they at least read the post but I can see a lot of back and forth growing from it on the Workshop page. If there are any particular extracts you think would be of use you might be able to use it in an analysis section or one of the proposal comments. I will not object to that since I wrote it in the context of the case.

I am still amazed at all of the drama that came out of that list!Jbh (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More than just a ping is necessary to thank you both for conferring. It displays the leadership necessary for retaining editors. @FCAYS talk.. . Buster Seven Talk 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JbH. Your efficiency and concern for responsible notification is commendable. . Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--MONGO 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: OK. Makes sense to me. Jbh (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have recently reviewed a Wikipedia article I published and I was hoping you can give me a bit more details about why you have included it in the "considered for deletion" list.

Since your last moderation, I have added more sources, made a few text changes, and I think the article is much better now. Kindly let me know if there is anything else I should change or edit. Comment by Felician89

@Felician89: hi. I nominated the article Monitor_Backlinks for deletion because I feel it does not meet our notability guidelines for companies or our general notability guidelines. In particular blog coverage and funding announcements do not lend a company notability. See WP:ORGIN and WP:CORPDEPTH for more detail on those points. Once the company has some significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. Jbh (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know why my page have got deleted i just found a photo on the internet that i think is not copyrighted so please come check my page out to see before i upload my article again thank you. my page name is muzicfan1981,

@MuzicFan1981: - Not sure what you are asking. The article you mentioned was not deleted. If you want to post a photo you must have a license for it, a fair use rational or it must be in the public domain. All of these things must be documented per the instructions when you upload. Jbh (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is a public domain the internet of what if i know the guy who did the photo for the chrome (RAPPER) article i created ? if i know his website can i put that in the picture uploader to pass the copyrights requirements Comment by MusicFan1981 Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your question properly, no just because an image is on the Internet it is not public domain. See WP:Copyrights for how to go about getting a proper license or release to use media on Wikipedia. If you know the subject of the article you should read out conflict of interest guidelines. Also, please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ doing so will insert your user name and a date/time stamp. This might be some help to you as you get started on Wikipedia - How to edit talk pages. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article, expanded it with four other sources, and nominated it for Did you know. In general, if you see an article that is cited to a dedicated piece in a usually reliable source (in this case an official obituary in the Daily Telegraph, a British broadsheet newspaper generally considered acceptable for BLPs), you should avoid CSD and go to AfD instead (or, even better, improve the article!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: OK. Will do. I just saw the one liner simply saying she was 'eccentric hotelier' and I guess my cynicism took over. Nice job on improving the article. Jbh (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, every now and again we all get grumpy, angry mastodon defence takes over and we hit the revert / delete buttons. Still, imagine if you'd done this! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Wow! :) Jbh (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jbhunley

Thanks for filling the references of my recently created articles. You were very fast and efficient. Its so painful that your first and only article, Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush was deleted per consensus at AfD· I'm really sorry about this and I hate to see your article deleted again in the future. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, if you need help on article creation. Happy editing. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£}

@Wikicology: Thank you, glad to be able to do something constructive even if only little things. The article deletion is no real concern. It was a table someone else made that I spun out as part of trying to resolve a content dispute. Lots of drama ensued that led to an Arbcom case being opened over the behavior of one of the other participants in that dispute.

Thank you for the offer of help, I may well take you up on it when I get the guts to write in an area I have some knowledge or find something innocuous and engaging from going through new pages. For now gnoming about keeps my busy when I'm otherwise bored and do not want to engage with real life :) Jbh (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jbhunley,

You should be able to sign in and get full access to Newspapers.com now. HazelAB (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HazelAB: Works fine. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm 1Potato2Potato3Potato4. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, WWE 2K (Mobile Game ), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@1Potato2Potato3Potato4: Thank you for catching that. I missed the copyvio. Jbh (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you flagged the article on Paula Peters as not containing any references; however it also looks like this problem is now fixed. Does the article's author have the authority to remove the flags?Ssenier (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssenier: Yes. Once a reliable source is used to support a claim any editor can remove the BLPPROD. Clean up tags can be removed by any editor who does not feel they apply or that the problem has been fixed.

The Paula Peters article needs to be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards and seems to be a bit promotional to me but that is only my, rather strict, opinion. Otherwise it is a nice article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!Ssenier (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and advice. I will modify my page to suit your requirments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doriscarnival (talk • contribs) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doriscarnival: Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. I tagged Carnival Group International Holdings Limited with a speedy delete tag because it contains large amounts of text copy/pasted from another source. This is against Wikipedia policy please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. Also please do not remove speedy delete tags from articles you have created like you did here and remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Please feel free to contact me here or {{ping}} me from the article talk page in you need assistance. Based on your user name and the title of the article you are editing please read our policies on conflict of interest Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JBH, thanks for helping at the 3O project. Just a couple of words of advice: When you take a request, be sure to remove it from the list (as stated in the last bullet point of "Providing third opinions" on the 3O page), even if you're not going to issue a 3O instantly (but if you're not going to issue one right away do as you did and put a note on the article talk page saying that you're working on it), but in any event remove the listing before you give the 3O. Second, convention has it that we volunteers don't annotate the request list except to indicate if a request has been reinserted after being removed for being stale (with something like "Second request" or somesuch). Both of those are no big deal and just part of the 3O learning curve and, again, we're really glad you've joined the 3O community of volunteers. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: Will do. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under construction. Did you not read the template? -MacRùsgail (talk)

@MacRusgail: I could not find significant coverage when I did WP:BEFORE. All I saw were blog entries and and marketing. I do not question the author's notability. If you can show the book meets WP:NBOOK I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Jbh (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're such a Smart Alec, why didn't you realise you don't AfD articles while they're under construction. That's the whole point of the template, to stop premature judgement, such as yours.

If you did notice it at all. Rude. -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The internet is actually not one of the best places to look for references anyway, since most of the links disappear after a year or two. Hard copy is better, if you can get hold of it. Google is not a research tool, it's a slightly creepy corporation which happens to run a search engine.[reply]

I've turned this article into a redirect to the author, and will continue writing it somewhere I can do so without harassment.

In future, note the template.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @MacRusgail: I understand your frustration but name calling only reflects poorly on you. If the book passes WP:NBOOK post the Keep argument at AfD, show the sources and I will withdraw the nomination just as I offered before your last comment. I took a closer look at the book because if the first thing an article creator has to say about a book it that it was a $0.99 special at Amazon I want to take a much closer look at its notability. I found a book published by Amazon's self-publishing house, with some blog coverage, some passing mention and sales material. Jbh (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't give a flying whatever about name calling. You nominated an article while an under construction template was on it. The only time that would properly apply if it that was piece of vandalism. You've taken up much of the time I would have actually spent improving the article.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm logging off Wikipedia. I've got more important things to do like writing a letter to a debt agency.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The article is now a redirect...[reply]

(edit conflict)@MacRusgail: Sorry, I am going to have to revert that redirect. Please note that the AfD notice says. Do not remove this notice and Do not blank the page. You have removed the AfD notice at least twice and now blanked it. Please follow the proper procedures. (Wow! I just looked you up on Xtools. None of this should be new to you.) PS {{under construction}} on an article in Main space is not a bar to AfD it is an informational notice. I am sorry if this upsets you. Jbh (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Aricooperdavis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Guimiliau Parish close, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. aricooperdavis (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aricooperdavis: OK. Would you mind saying what you found to be in error? I understand it is possible I missed something and it would help me to understand what it might be so I do not repeat an error. Thank you for your time. Jbh (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I thought that I'd accidentally reviewed it before I'd finished checking it, so I unreviewed it again - sorry about that! Looking at it, though, it seems to have been poorly translated from French, and doesn't contain enough context. For example the first sentence "The enclos paroissial of Guimiliau" contains two non-english words and doesn't have a full stop, whilst nowhere does the page mention where the "enclos" actually is, or that it's a parish close (apart from the title). It seems like it could do with quite a bit more work, but since that's not a criteria for reviewing AfC submissions, I think I've acted in error. Sorry again! aricooperdavis (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aricooperdavis: No problem. Mistakes are just part of doing the work - we all make them now and then. When I the note I figured it as likely I had made one as you. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jbh, you too. aricooperdavis (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PROD on this article and taken it to AFD instead. I think a fuller evaluation of the sources is in order. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: OK. Works for me. Thanks for the note. Jbh (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is in relation to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splashed_white

I am the IP user who initially brought up the concerns regarding original research, and I've just found the rest of the debate. I just wanted to say thanks for your assistance with helping resolve this. I believe the original research has now been removed, and I am satisfied with how the article is now worded.

Incidentally, I believe you mentioned you were genuinely interested in the topic, so I thought you might be interested in some information I've uncovered. I asked the Gypsy Vanner Society for clarification with regard to 'blagdon' and the general summary of their reply was that it was a phenotype that could include (but not necessarily limited to) patterns which were genetically sabino or draft-type sabino. They explicitly stated the former is present in the breed. Draft-type sabino can't be tested for, so is unknown, however this is present all through the clydesdale breed, which was heavily used as foundation stock for the gypsy breed, so it's plausible that it is also present. Because of the definition of blagdon as just a phenotype, it can't be ruled out that it also includes some very weird looking SW1 horses. Unlikely, especially considering the lack of normal looking SW1 gypsies, but not impossible, so to have the article phrased as it currently is is suitable.

I'm not planning on adding this to any article, since personal communications aren't exactly verifiable resources, but I thought you might find it interesting since you expressed an interest. Thanks again for your help.

14.2.119.6 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and I am glad the article text came out in a way that works for you. Doing the research for that was fascinating. I wonder if breeders will start to take advantage of the cheap fast whole genome sequencing becoming available. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be really interesting to watch the results of this field as genetic testing becomes more prevalent. Speaking of which, W20 is looking like the main culprit behind the "four socks and blaze" version of blagdon. Some gypsies have tested positive for it, as have a large group of other horses from a very diverse group of breeds, all of whom appear to share this phenotype. It would appear W20 is very prevalent. Some more info if you're curious:

http://practicalhorsegenetics.com.au/index.php?test=w20

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23659293

Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? About the links, I shall read more and place it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J A Srivathsan: I am not sure what template you mean. As far as the {{db-band}} speedy deletion template goes it was originally placed by Everymorning who I just pinged. Maybe they can explain their thinking on placing it. My thought is you might want to read our general notability guidelines, notability criteria for bands/musicians and our policies on reliable sources to get an idea of what is required to be considered notable for Wikipedia.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for coming to my talk page to ask questions rather than continuing to remove the speedy tag. Please let me know if I can be of help. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ that will cause your name and the date to be inserted. Jbh (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Thank you so much. I shall chat with Everymorning about this matter. Thanks once again.J A Srivathsan (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please help me in getting rid of the issues with the page Dinesh Vaghela

Also, when searched on Google, the page does not appear on the first page of the search.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirvaghela (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kabirvaghela. I see you have put quite a bit of work into the article. I have taken a closer look at it and I see two major problems. The first is that much of the text is taken directly from articles found on the web. This is not allowed here because of WP:COPYRIGHT issues. This can be solved restating the material in your own words and I can try to help some with that.

The second issue is more of a problem. I am unsure whether the subject of the article passed our general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will look through the sources in the article but you have put in a lot of things like books he has written or published that are not really appropriate at first glance. Clearing those out will take some time. I will ask another editor who is more experienced in Indian topics than I to take a look and ask for their opinion [1] since I am not familiar with Indian politics and what notable coverage is.

You can help a lot with this by finding articles from independent, third party reliable sources which talk about him. This means sources that are not written or published by him, his party, his campaign or anyone related to him. Please understand that it is almost certain that the article will be much shorter than it is now and if notability can not be established there will be an Articles for Deletion discussion opened to discuss the notability of the subject.

I will do what I can with the article. As to the Google search results that is not something Wikipedia has any control over and is based on Google's search algorithm. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Added diff of help request for reference. Jbh (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirvaghela: I have re-written the article based on the sources and text available to address the copyright issue and to remove material not supported by sources. While looking into the subject I could not find any really significant coverage. I tried using both 'Vaghela' and alternate spelling 'Waghela'. As it stands it is likely I will need to nominate the article at WP:AFD. If you can find some sources in the next couple of days maybe that can be avoided. Please see notability for politicians and general notability guidelines for our criteria for articles. Also please see reliable sources for the types of sources needed. Please note that the sources must be independent of him and his party. We need things like newspaper articles that talk about him in a significant way. Mere mentions of his name or minor quotes do not contribute to notability. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your guidance. ~~~~

@Kabirvaghela: You are quite welcome. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Also, the 'nowiki' and 'code' tags are just how I got the four ~ to display without the software inserting my signature in their place. When you sign just use the four ~ at the end. Here is a quick primer on talk pages you might find helpful: How to edit talk pages Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley:oh! thank you once again. i'm a new user, please bare with me :D--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Vaghela, the way to improve the article is not to turn it into a unsourced hagiography. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirvaghela: Based on the lack of better sources in the rewrite I have decided to nominate the article for AfD. The subject does not meet our notability criteria for politicians or our general notability criteria.If the article is deleted at AfD then when/if the subject wins a notable election or gets more substantial coverage in reliable sources the article can be recreated based on the new material. Jbh^Talk 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool new signature! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jbh^Talk 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley:How do i stop the article from getting deleted?

should i restore the article to the date that you edited it? --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is find some high quality sources like national newspapers that discuss the subject in depth not simply mention his name in passing or relate a small quote. I have given you links to the notability criteria several times and the relevant criteria are mentioned in my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Vaghela.

When I did the re-write I simply used the material that was present in the article and removed the copyright violations and presented it per WP:NPOV. I searched for more sources, also using an alternate spelling, and found nothing of note which I could use to improve the article. While the article's wording was more in line with our policies in the version I wrote is still did not pass out notability guidelines. You should present your arguments for keeping the article at the AfD discussion. You can continue to improve the article while the discussion goes on. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to an encyclopedia article on Bonny Norton (Higgins, 2011), plus a number of external links, but it's still suggested that it be deleted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espensj (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Espensj: Sorry, I misread the cite as something she had written as opposed to something written about. The article is paywalled and I made a bad assumption. I removed the BLPPROD. Jbh^Talk 22:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBH, I did not make any recent changes to Sugar Mountain Farm nor did I remove the AFD tag. I would like to request a week to work on putting together the citations on notability that CorporateM asked for. Pubwvj (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK to continue to improve the article and present sources while the AfD is ongoing. AfD generally lasts at least seven days so you should have time. Please carefully read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Please note that AfD is not a vote (That is why comments there are called !votes) rather arguments are based on Wikipedia policies. One good, policy based, !vote should 'win' over a dozen !votes that are not based on policy. It is best when you comment at AfD to cite the particular part of the guidelines the article meets and what you feel makes it meet them.

I nominated the article because the back and forth was getting tiresome and while I initially felt the notability was a bit questionable I really respect CorporateM's opinion on this type of thing, so that tipped me from meh to delete. Jbh^Talk 15:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pubwvj: In case I have not mentioned it I really appreciate and respect the way you have backed off direct editing of the article since I got involved. Jbh^Talk 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JBH. I appreciate your help with understanding the Wiki process and with improving the article. I am not a Wiki expert. I'm a farmer. I know a lot about rotational grazing, growing pasture, growing pigs on pasture, naturally raising animals, USDA regulations, building a USDA/State inspected butcher shop, concrete, boar taint, selective breeding and what we do. I'm barely skimming the surface of learning about Wiki. My understanding of Wiki is low. What I have added to the article in the past was based on what I thought I was being told by previous editors to do. I appreciate the feedback. The terminology and abbreviations are a bit overwhelming. Thank you for the references to read which you listed above. It will take me some time to assimilate them. Pubwvj (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pubwvj: Yes, Wikipedia can be arcane. What all of those links boil down to is several independent, third party, reliable sources that talk about the subject in detail are needed to demonstrate notability. Sources that do not exert strong editorial control, self published sources, those that make only passing mentions or brief quotes and those that do not discuss the subject in depth do not count towards notability although some may be useful for supporting part of the article.

If you have any questions about the guidelines or sources you think might demonstrate notability feel free to ask me. I will be happy to give my opinion but please understand that my opinion counts no more or less than any other editor and others quite possibly will disagree. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JB, I am curious why articles like this one Valentine Richmond History Center which has clearly been edited by COI editors associated with the museum and doesn't yet have a single reliable source independent of the topic cited in the article (since its creation in 2006) gets a free pass on COI and GNG yet we are more than willing to do almost anything to suppress content like Sugar Mountain Farm? Just curious! --Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Cline: Because of how Wikipedia is organized often no one will notice a problem at an article until someone either directly calls an editor's attention to the matter, as you have done, or the issue spills over onto one of our internal noticeboards. I took a quick look at the article, since everything was, as you said, cited to their web page I also took a brief look for material on the web. I found two local articles on the Valentine itself The Valentine Richmond History Center, Reopening This Weekend: Richmond History Center Now Just 'The Valentine' and one on a current exhibit there Beard Wars: Civil War Generals and their Bewhiskered Modern-Day Counterparts which can be used to improve the article.

Regarding COI the obvious COI editor, ValentineRHC, has not edited since 2012. If you have concerns about the others you can bring the issue up at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. With respect to 'suppressing content' at Sugar Mountain Farm I would disagree with that characterization. There are a lot of passing mentions but no real in depth coverage that speaks to notability. Possibly more will be found but it is my experience that when a COI editor has been working on an article for a long time, particularly against an opposing editor as in this case, they will have already put in the best sources they can find along with all of the other questionable ones.

I hope I was able to address your concerns, at least to an extent, if you have any other questions or concerns please ask. Jbh^Talk 19:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JB thanks. I indeed realize things slip through the cracks. But even the local sources you listed may support content, but do they rise to the level of GNG. Using the same logic that CorporateM used to remove most content sources from the Sugar Mountain Farm article (the owner of the farm obviously contributed to those sources therefore they aren't reliable was the logic he used) I strongly suspect that this museum's PR function contributed to the pieces you cited. It's really the double standard we tolerate and perpetuate with our "Blood in the water" COI approach that I am railing against, not you in particular. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Cline: That I do understand. My personal views are kind of deletionist and I would support the equivalent of BLPPROD for everything. I think the reason managed COI articles get 'picked on' is the more editors whose attention are drawn to an article the bigger chance someone will notice it does not meet our standards. While one that is just created and left alone only needs to get through New Page Patrol and no one will ever notice it. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 22:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

stop correcting my stuff, its the correct stuff so stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewpich (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewpich: I tagged Selena Gomez (singer and actress) for speedy deletion because all the article consists of is "Selena Gomez is a singer and actress. She is really awesome. She was born on 7/22/92" this is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please read our guide to writing your first article and check out the Wikipedia Tea House for information on what is needed to write an article which meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please let me know if I can be of help. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh^Talk 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not autobiography. I write about Misha Frid from his account (we are friends) and we write an article including references and information from other sources (our autobiography is only on his official website) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgfrid (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgfrid: Welcome to Wikipedia I understand that our policies can be confusing at first. Please see our policies on conflict of interest. Also it is not permitted to use another editors account see our User name policy for details. Please sign up for your own account before you continue editing and note on the article talk page and the new accounts talk page that you have changed accounts and that you previously edited under the Mgfrid account. This allows for proper copyright attribution and prevents you from running afoul our policy about using multiple accounts. If you have any questions or need assistance please feel free to contact me on my talk page or you can ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Jbh^Talk 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh^Talk 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you added the 4 tildes when you resigned, or did you? It only works if you do that, if it even works then. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: Yes, it was only a couple of seconds between edits so I deleted the old sig and resigned. Thank you for checking though, I have been caught by that mistake before. Jbh^Talk 12:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thank you. It is extremely unlikely I will participate beyond the comment I made in the RfAr. Jbh^Talk 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]