A tag has been placed on John James Nazarian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, see my reply at the AfD. Second, I do want to say welcome to Wikipedia, and don't be embarrassed or red-faced; at some point, everyone is new (in fact, sometimes I still feel like I'm new when I try something new around here), and thus, it will take time to get acclimated with how things work around here. Keep working at the article and feel free to get experienced editors' opinions throughout, especially those working in a related WikiProject. I'm sure the article will be good for Wikipedia at some point even if not right now. FWIW, if you can get information on some of these media appearances, you might have enough to save the article, and then work can be done to remove stuff that shouldn't be in the article; thus, when you have time, go source hunting and you can provide some notability related to the discussion. This could result in a keep. I am still neutral and have not provided an opinion either way yet. CycloneGU (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your entries at the Article for deletion discussion, and per this conversation, there is a way to make it less likely that non-article space material in userpages and talkpages gets indexed (although some systems will ignore the 'request'). You should be able to get assistance doing so by creating a {{helpme}} request here with a request asking to 'noindex' your pages (with or without following the IRC chat link, though linking is usually faster - once there type the seven character ' !helper ' and your question in the white box at the very bottom of the page, and responses to you will have an accompanying 'beep'), or a new entry at the bottom here (where it will be highly visible for about 4 days, and then remain in the searchable archives). Dru of Id (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joey, sorry that I missed your message earlier today, I got a couple at once and overlooked yours... I will take a look at the article. Carrite (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to communicate here or by email? It is totally your choice of what's easier. I'm Tim at MutantPop@aol.com if you want. Or this works.

Okay, here's what needs to happen on the piece, in my opinion:

1. Notability has to be demonstrated so that the AfD challenge ends as a "Keep". Take a look at WP:OUTCOMES to familiarize yourself with the sort of thing that people will be looking for at AfD.

2. All the "external links" to websites need to disappear from the body of the article and the relevant ones need to reappear as footnotes.

3. The footnotes need to be radically changed. As they currently sit, they are a group of little trivia factoids. What they need to become is documentation of the assertions you make, WITH a weblink to the source if possible.

4. There needs to be LOTS of the personal trivia pared away. You're not writing a book about every aspect of the man's life, but rather an encyclopedia article that tells readers who he is and why he's important.

Take a look at that Outcomes link first. Then have a look at the page that I'm working on currently to get a peak at the sort of style you should be more or less writing in: Jacob Golos. Then drop me an email or a message on my talk page and we'll figure out how to solve the puzzle. You have already done more than enough research, don't sweat doing any more of that for just now. And don't worry too much, I think you've got a keeper subject here once it's solved... Carrite (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Email is great my email is bioenthusiast01@gmail.com I will look at the pages you suggest and then get started with you. I am a biography nut, both live and dead since I am into genealogy. But leave it to me to jump into the fire thinking my CSS and HTML coding knowledge is all I needed... Live and learn. --JoeyD2010 (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this on your talk page since soliciting votes for Articles for Deletion debates comes under very close scrutiny under WP:CANVASS and this particular message needs to be transparent to any Wikipedia editor so that there are no misunderstandings. I just want to point out, since you're new to Wikipedia and probably don't know, that everyone has a right to state a case for (or sometimes against, believe it or not!) an article which they have created at AfD. If you wish to do this, you should start a new paragraph, usually with an asterisk starting it and the word Keep or Delete in bold type as the first word in the sentence. Then you may explain why you feel that the article meets (or does not meet) general notability guidelines, which can be found at WP:GNG, or the specific guidelines for an academic, movie star or whatever.

It is very helpful to include a couple links to material which treat the subject of the article in a serious way — sources in so-called "reliable," independent, third party sources. You do not need to quote these links extensively or at all, nor do the sources have to be used in the article, just make sure the full link or links are part of your vote so that interested people can check them out. The EXISTENCE of independent coverage is the main thing. Links to newspapers, magazines, journals, books, and serious scholarly resources score points; links to blogs, wikis, fanzines, YouTube videos, or the personal sites of the subject of the article are usually dismissed out of hand. If the source being cited is in a book or magazine or whatever that doesn't appear on the web, list the date of publication, page number, etc. so that it may be confirmed manually by anyone so interested.

It is important that no matter what you say that you do not personally attack anyone who disagrees with you. If you wish to participate, just say your piece, one way or the other, and step out of the way. Don't worry about putting up thousands of links, two or three really good ones that haven't already been mentioned by others is generally sufficient. Best regards, Tim. Carrite (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For sticking with it on your first article, from a proposed Speedy Deletion all the way successfully through AfD — your first barnstar. I hope you have a long, productive, and fun stint at Wikipedia! Carrite (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Joey--

They're giving me guff about the Nazarian photo. Could I have you check your email spooler for May 7 to see if you can find the original email and have you forward that to permissions-en@wikimedia.org?

I'm going to post the notice here. Be sure you include the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John-James-Nazarian-2009.jpg with the email you forward to them...

Hope all is well with you! Carrite (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carrite,

Been sick a couple of weeks sent the email off tonight to them.

Thanks,

--JoeyD2010 (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John-James-Nazarian-2009.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones 

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

Ricky Bell (running back) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Johnnie Johnson

Tony Dorsett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ricky Bell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add information to Wes Chandler regarding his agent without providing a source.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I felt this statement backed up with the Sports Illustrated link was sufficient in cleaning up an article as in:

Trope's other clients included Ward, Florida Wide Receiver Wes Chandler, whom New Orleans made the third player selected, and Stanford Wide Receiver James Lofton, chosen sixth by Green Bay. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1093648/2/index.htm

Is there more than a link from an outside news source that you are asking for? Thanks JoeyD2010 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source was not added as part of your original edit; hence, it seemed to be unsourced. Another editor had also cited WP:WEIGHT in their earlier revert, apparently believing the mention of his agent was trivial. I would suggest you get consensus on the article's talk page before reintroducing the text and avoid edit-warring.—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit-warring Great just what we need. his agent is newsworthy under the WP:WEIGHT because without his agent who was named Super Agent, Whiz kid, and other things from multiple sources including two books. Why wouldn't the original writer of this article not want more facts with news links or there is going to be edit-warring Those of us who are here several hours a month to do our share to keep Wiki as a good and well sourced encyclopedia in content and sources don't have time to then become embroiled with editors who desire to commence edit warring. If that other editor is the original writer or you are I will defer and move on.... But this seems to be small BS stuff and the editor who brought that up and deleted the information did not even send me a message so I could work with them and not create an atmosphere of I GIVE UP that many of us get over this kind of stuff. JoeyD2010 (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody owns the article, no matter who created the article or how many edits one has made. We operate on consensus. WP:BRD is an acceptable practice, and the editor did leave a detailed edit summary. Do not worry, as there is no deadline.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have been warned by other editors to tread carefully if you are making a correction to an article that an editor created as it becomes territorial fast. I have never subscribed to that way of thinking or working and have always asked for input on any of my articles that I was the main contributor to originally before you hit that publish button. What I should have said is if the other editor was the originated author of the page for Wes Chandler or by being a lawyer was doing a legal weighing then it was not worth fighting about. I try hard to donate my time, be a team player and ask questions. It was a good catch on your part that I put the source link under Michael Trope and had not copied it to Wes Chandler... Let me give this some thought or just decide not to bother... I find Mr. Trope a fascinating subject because he changed the pay of NFL players and from there the game and paid changed completely; that and his client list reads like a who's who. Again thanks for your feedback. JoeyD2010 (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we edit this article for the real guy and include he is not a PI and has 5 criminal convictions or just modify or remove the page

How much do we really know about this guy. I found where his PI license has been permanently revoked for harassing an ex-girlfriend in 2010 and he has 5 convictions including two involving children. Kind of makes you go YUK, and if he is to be here shouldn't his full history be included?

You can find the part of his probation, and revocation of his license and all of his convictions at http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=26529&P_LTE_ID=651 and download the length of his investigations and why and download the whole file at Public Record Document: pi-26529_2012_10_25_dec.pdf JoeyD2010 You can also talk to me about this on my own talk page (talk) JoeyD2010 (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for someone to look at and give me suggestions for a living bio in my sandbox of Glenn S. Liposn. In particular should I use the NBC Dateline appearance in Oct. 2015. Just want input and suggestions for the whole page.

Please help me with... JoeyD2010 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no benefit to citing Dateline since it provides no information on Lipson. In general the article is very short on third-party sources discussing Lipson in some detail. For example:

• Reference 4 says he worked for the defense in one case. It does not say he frequently works as an expert witness, and does not discuss Lipson in any detail. Reference 5 is another copy of the same article that provides no additional information.
• Reference 6 is a press release by his employer, not an independent source.
• References 7 and 8 do not mention Lipson at all.
• Reference 9 is another passing mention that does not cover Lipson in any detail.

Many other references similarly mention Lipson only in passing, or not at all. Instead we'd need third-party sources that discuss Lipson himself in some detail; the article content should be a summary of what such sources report. I would remove the entire "News" section. Just imagine, for comparison, what the Barack Obama article looked like if we listed every newspaper article that mentions him. Huon (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:" namespace, for the record, isn't for articles — it's for editorial workspace pages, such as WP:AFD discussions and WikiProjects and user conduct statements. It's not necessarily a case of the page needing anything more before it can become an article; it's that moving it into "Wikipedia:" namespace wasn't making it one. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deleted help request, resolved it myself to seek out editors who deal in Google Scholars and which papers to show in article and which to put in main body as a citation with footnote if it is important to Lipson's bio.

Thanks,

Joey

JoeyD2010 (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me amended after I found answers and who which editors I needed to approach for suggestions.

JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoeyD2010. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I recognize that this was a good faith submission of a stale draft. But this article was prodded in 2016 for not adequately demonstrating his notability, then restored to draftspace to give the creator an opportunity to get it up to snuff -- and then went entirely untouched, except for bots performing routine maintenance tasks, until the review submission about a month ago. All of which means that the actual content is entirely unchanged from the version that got prodded last year -- so it can't be accepted in that state, and should just be MFDed as a stale draft.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Glenn S. Lipson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Glenn S. Lipson, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Glenn S. Lipson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Glenn S. Lipson during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Debra Opri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoeyD2010. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey are you still editing? Paul Barresi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:747F:B308:7CD3:781B:6F06:2971 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoeyD2010! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]