Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, can you please see this discussion regarding an edit request I made. Only one of the two edits I requested was completed. Thanks. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note there, I agree with your change, but I'm going to give folks an hour or two to push back as this if they're going to. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 16:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 18:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could you explain to me how to correctly carry out semi-auto clerking at WP:RPP? Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There seems to be a general consensus in favor of the behavior of Rami_R's semi-auto-clerking script, just insert this in your appropriate startup Javascript (e.g., User:Joe Decker:vector.js)

  importScript('User:Rami_R/rfppClerk.js');

It seemed a bit mysterious to me at first: It doesn't immediately move recently addressed requests, and so forth, but that seems to be a desired effect, presumably so that folks would have a chance to respond as things happen. It's pretty easy to use once you get it loaded, just start editing WP:RFPP, press the clerking item that will have appeared in the Toolbox near the bottom of the left sidebar, and (after checking it hasn't mucked everything up badly) save the results. Let me know if you have any trouble. Thanks for offering to lend a hand! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, there's documentation even! User:Rami_R/rfppClerk --j⚛e decker^talk 16:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I'll try to get that set up now. Cheers,--Chip123456 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Q! How long should requests stay in the fullled/denied requests for?--Chip123456 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just use that script's defaults, and I think a lot of folks are pretty "used to" that -- 6 hour wait after a request is marked fulfilled before it's moved there, 12 hours after it's moved there until it's removed entirely. I wouldn't mess at all with the latter, but if you felt 6 hours (between fulfillment and when it got moved) was too long, you might open up a discussion at WT:RFPP -- to be honest, I'm relatively new here at working RFPP as an admin, and there are certainly a lot of folks who work this queue who've had a lot more experience with the process and what works best. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Good luck with your admin tasks there as an 'RPP newbie'!--Chip123456 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! And thank you for wanting to help out here! By the way, (and you may already be doing this), there are other ways to help out here. I've often seen comments from folks when I look at a request that help me evaluate what's going on in a situation--noting, say, that a edit war has only autoconfirmed users so a semi won't work, that sort of thing. It's not that I won't double-check that, but I do often find that such comments help speed up the process I go through of evaluating what's going on. Again, thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Ok, I will do that when I see an oppurtunity.....I've made a couple before using the odd {{NAO}} here and there. Thanks for your help and I hope to bump into you again in the future!--Chip123456 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, thanks so much for taking care of the stepson issue on Usher. I'm also writing because there's a separate edit request for the article here. Rivertorch said he wants someone else to make the decision. So can you make the decision on it? Thanks for your help. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nevermind, Joe. After reading my reply, Rivertorch decided to make the change. Have a great weekend. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry I'd missed this until now. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If its OK with you I'm gonna put a copy of your suggestion [[1]] over at The team page. Can I suggest you join? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's totally okay with me. I'd be glad to join, I really support the effort, but I'm not sure I'll be the most thoughtful contributor, there are lots of folks doing a lot of really great work there, who've thought about the problem a lot longer than I have. Still, perhaps I can say something constructive now and again. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you. I'm just wondering, with RPP are you allowed to make non-ad closures, like at PERM's?--Chip123456 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all, Chip! I've tried to look through the archives on this, and haven't found a firm consensus. I believe that I've seen User:Armbrust, who I believe is a non-admin, do at least a few crystal-clear closures-as-denied, he might be able to provide some useful guidance in practice on this question, I have a fair bit of trust for his NAC work at RFPP and elsewhere. I personally would have no trouble with NAC closures of crystal-clear denieds or "already dones", but I don't feel that I can speak for community consensus on this question.

And please continue to feel welcome to ask questions. I just may send you elsewhere if I'm not sure of the answer! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! :) Non-admin closures at RFPP have not been discussed recently, but they have been at permissions, see here and the new discussion about it here. Hope that's of some help. :) Acalamari 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JD. I will go slowly, and ensure that they are 'crystal clear' decline cases. Thanks Acalamari, I was dropped a note earlier that there was a discussion at PERMS. :).--Chip123456 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acalamari, thanks! I mostly haven't worked PERMS, but that certainly gives me an idea of what some of the more contentious issues might be here. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few NAC's today......I hope they're OK! :)--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 14:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see an issue or two, let me go through and look more carefully, please don't make any more closes until I've had a chance to come back here and discuss. Thanks for letting me know! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please tell me, when you have looked through so I know where to improve, it's better than mucking things up!--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 15:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chip. I've reviewed the NAC declines, and ended up protecting three of them, and even one or two that I agree with are probably *potentially* contentious (because a lot of times these things are judgment calls), I'll get into the specifics in a minute. In any process, we tend to require that NACs be nearly absolutely uncontentuous, and that was not the case in even some of those I "upheld". I suspect the NAC declines at this point are going to prove a bad idea. I'm sorry that I've likely led you down the wrong path here, and I apologize for and take full responsiblity for that, but I really do think it's best right now if you stop declines.

I do appreciate your energy and enthusiasm, but it's best that you stop declines for the time. If you'd like to pursue other ways to help at RFPP, what I'd suggest is that you find a far more experienced RFPP admin (more experienced than myself at the page, that is) and discuss the matter with them, and start that process by having a discussion on the general topic at WT:RFPP. You may find that there's no support for the idea, or if there is, perhaps someone with more experience will be able to provide better coaching than I can provide at this time.

As a matter of information only, the biggest problem that I saw in the pattern of declines that I overturned was in cases of long-term patterns of vandalism. The precise amount of recent vandalism generally needs to be weighed in view of the longer-term history of that kind of vandalism, in view of when and if and for how long the article has been previously protected, and the specific nature of the kinds of vandalism involved. In one of the cases, the same sorts of vandalism had gone on for years, and recurred soon after protection was lifted, even a single recurrence at that point is worth considering for a new and longer protection period, as I did. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm quite able to effectively put words into all the factors I take into consideration here, I don't think it's as easy as I might have thought to write a completely objective guide to the process. This is why I feel that, if and only if there's consensus to allow NAC at WT:RFPP, a more experienced mentor for you would be of help. I am far from certain that there will be such a consensus, though--and it is certainly best if you ask at WT:RFPP. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see there is such a discussion going on! Awesome, thanks! And if you ever want coaching on something I do have some experience with (e.g., I'm probably relatively clueful about AfD), please let me know. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I concur, and will stay away, for the time being, away from the NAC's and will just stick to the NAO's/Clerking. I would really like to take you up on that offer about AfD......although I've made 5 non-reverted non- ad closures there, It's not a place where I'm overly active. I'll show you ScottyWongs AfD tool which shows how I have commented there so you can see my delte/keep comments. My NAC's for this can be found on my talk. Again, Thanks!--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 15:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go.--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chip, just a quick note, I have not forgotten this, the last two days have been kinda crazy with cat-related stuff, but I will get back to talking with you about AfDs, etc. Thanks for your patience! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joe. There are administrator notes at the top of Central Region of United Synagogue Youth (CRUSY) about whether the article should be deleted, redirected, or merged into United Synagogue Youth (USY). (CRUSY is one of USY's 17 regions. None of the other 16 have their own article.) The first admin note for some reason links to the USY talk page instead of the CRUSY talk page. Anyway, I started this discussion where the link led. I was hoping you could add your input and initiate a decision. Thanks! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) 03:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 76! Yeah, the {{mergeto}} template is intended to be used along with the {{mergefrom}} template, on the "source" of the proposed merge (CRUSY), the other on the "target" of the proposed merge (USY). Both templates end up pointing at the talk page of the target article. By having both templates point to the talk page of the target article, all the discussion gets handled together, rather than split across the two talk pages. I've added the appropriate mergefrom template, this may help draw the attention of other editors to the question. Any editor can place these and when there is sufficient consensus, either remove the templates (in the case of "leave it the way it is", or make the merge happen (by adding the material from the source to the target, and then making the source into a redirect via normal editing. (Deletion can't be completed this way, though, if folks decide it should still be deleted there it would have to still go through PROD or AfD.) You should be aware that it's very common for merge discussions to be move quite slowly.

The first question I'd ask, though, is do you think CRUSY is notable? That's usually a matter of whether you can find reliable, independent sources which provide in-depth coverage of the topic. If you can't find them (try things like Google News Archives and Google Books searches. Certainly try regular Google too, but the %age of sources that will end up being "reliable" from those is going to be much much smaller, so I always start with the other two searches. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Joe! To answer your question, based on my understanding and research, the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. United Synagogue Youth, the organization of which CRUSY and the 16 other regions are a part, is certainly notable because it is a major Jewish youth orgnization across the U.S. (and and in a few other countries). But each of its 17 individual regions, including CRUSY, simply implement the "parent" organization's (USY's) programs and processes for their own area. So, generally speaking, the 17 regions all do the same thing. Therefore, it would seem that none of the individual regions should have their own article. And none of them currently do, except for CRUSY. Also, United Synagogue Youth already includes a complete table which lists all 17 regions. I was hoping you could give your opinion in the discussion I started on the USY talk page. I'd rather have experts like yourself make the determination on what the correct and appropriate way to handle the CRUSY article is. Thanks! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a note there. I'm leaning in the redirect or merge area. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for your friendly and helpful assistance. You're a great admin. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for protecting Buyer's remorse. Did you notice my request on WP:RPP, or were you coming from somewhere else with your protection? I was promptly turned down on RPP, on the argument that there had only been one instance of vandalism since Floquenbeam's 3-month protection expired yesterday… I was asked to keep an eye on it and report again if there was a lot more vandalism. As of course there would have been, if you hadn't protected it. 6 months sounds good to me. I gave up my tools in February, I think it was, and it's an interesting experience to have one's peon opinion dismissed. I recommend all long-term admins to try it. Anyway, thanks again. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. Aha, after checking the RPP history, I now see you had revoked the rejection. So the system worked after all! :-) (My post was gone when I returned to the page shortly after seeing the first reply, so I just assumed rejected requests were being promptly removed.) Bishonen | talk 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry for declining your request.....I just thought we didn't protect in 'there might be vandalism' circumstnaces. At least the issue is resolved....for the time being. :)--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Chip was working in good faith, but without enough guidance from myself, my bad. (Strange that your post was gone, however, usually the standard auto-clerking leaves them for 6 hours or so before moving them to fulfilled, and 12 before they're removed from the page.) --j⚛e decker^talk 16:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not your bad, my bad! Have you seen the tool? Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RFPP auto-clerking tool? Yep, use it myself. But I leave it set at the default settings. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the AfD vote tool?! Sorry, I should've kept it under the same section. I've seen your comment and understand your busy, I can wait!--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, Scotty's tool is awesome. I just want to spend some time actually looking at its results in detail before we get started, and that'll take a more uninterrupted chunk of time, not a lot, just hasn't been possible the last day or two. No later than tomorrow. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! You can give me a nudge on my talk, it's quieter there than here......less chance of ec's!--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe Decker! Yes, I'd like to have my user page protected. I didn't know it was possible for Wikipedians but now that I do, I won't refuse it. I think a semi-protection is enough. Thanks, Sofffie7 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already done it! Thank you :-) --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joe Decker. You have new messages at Brambleberry of RiverClan's talk page.
Message added 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I think you may want to copy your comment for User talk:Aldi77 to that editor's talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yeah; I'd simply answered where he'd left the "help me". Good point, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. A user cited Gawker in the Personal life section of Marissa Mayer (about her marriage). Does Wikipedia consider Gawker to be a reliable/credible source? Or is it a gossip blog that is not allowed to be cited? If not reliable, can you remove it and instruct that a proper citation is needed? And, out of curiosity, if Gawker can't be used does that mean that websites like TMZ cannot be used either? Thanks! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I replied to you (above) about Central Region United Synagogue Youth. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm behind on getting back to several folks, sorry about that. this is probably stronger, while it's not a contentious claim, I would avoid Gawker, they've got a fairly poor reputation for accuracy and editorial control as I recall. You can always get a more decisive answer from WP:RSN, but in general if you're worried about a source the best thing to do is to hit Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books and such and just find one that seems more reliable and neutral. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the guidance and link! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I think an admin needs to have a chat with User:Codehelper. He has inappropriately inserted links to photos into various articles (within the articles and in External Links). They all link to an image site called Imagehyper.com. Also, he just created Melissa Mayer, a person who doesn't even exist. He obviously is confused with the first name and was thinking of Marissa Mayer, who was named CEO of Yahoo! today. Here's the edit he did in Marissa Mayer, sticking a link to random photo of Mayer in the External Links which goes here. If possible, can you set Codehelper straight about these issues? Thanks. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is it appropriate to have all these external links? Most of them are just random news articles about the subject, plus a few links to videos (YouTube and C-SPAN). The text of the article is already fully sourced with appropriate citations inserted. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was more going on there, warranting blocking the editor. In case I'm not around (hey, it happens), in the future you can also attract admin attention on stuff like this by leaving a note at WP:AIV. Thanks for the note! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look at the external links question separately, I'm off to dinner. Don't take them out yet--one possiblity is that they were put there to encourage/allow expansion of the article, if there are a lot of new sources, there is probably a lot more to say. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're welcome, and OK. Haha. Joe, I think User:Mato2012 and User:Codehelper may be the same person. Not only have both users inappropriately inserted photos from Imagehyper.com into articles, some of the articles they've done it in are the same. In Marissa Mayer, Mato2012 did this edit, and then Codehelper did this edit 52 minutes later. If it's not the same person, then it's two users who are working together. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 03:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that passes the Duck Test. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this evening, you blocked this account for spam. Well, this is his buddy: User:Forumhelper12. He should be blocked too. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly, I think I've whacked all the moles now. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, here's a 4th account plugging ImageHyper.com images into articles: User:Wewetu80. The user did this edit. The URL links to this image that they've put in before. So User:Codehelper, User:Mato2012, User:Forumhelper12 and User:Wewetu80 are all the same user or are working together. Wikipedia is being attacked by ImageHyper vandals. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly, I think I've whacked all the moles now. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, add another mole to whack. User:212.49.88.100 inserted an ImageHyper photo link to Marissa Mayer today. Here is the edit. It is the same photo that some of the other users you banned had inserted. This user, instead of just adding it as a new link, simply substituted the URL of an already-existing link without changing any of the other info (source, date).

Also, not sure if you had a chance to look at that list of external links I mentioned in my post above but I'd be curious to here your opinion. I read WP:EL but just am not sure which, or how many, links are acceptable to add to an article. It just seems like a big overkill in Marissa Mayer.

Finally, this sentence was added by a user to the Career and honors section of Marissa Mayer: "The video of Mayer's 2011 interview of Lady Gaga as part of the Musicians@Google series has received almost two million views on YouTube.[16]" Is it allowed to link to a YouTube video like that? And if it is, is that sentence even worthy of inclusion in the article? --76.189.98.15 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up on whack-a-mole, I'm going to see if MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist will add imagehyper. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links: It seems excessive to me, too. Maybe move a block of the ones you think to be extraneous to the talk page? No opinion on the YouTube thing, really, one way or another, you can always raise that at the article talk page. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the talk page to this team that I can go to, to send a talk message to them, about the person that tried to hack my account? The hacker's IP Address must be searched somewhere. --(BlueMario1016) (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the only people with IP number information outside of the foundation itself (which you would have to contact via email or telephone are CheckUsers, and I'm not sure the have access to the web access logs. Still, they'd probably know where to go next if they can't help you directly. There's a list of CheckUsers here, you want the ones with "CU" by their names, you could try their talk pages, for example. I have looked but I haven't been able to find anything myself that's more appropriate. Sorry about that. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a more up-to-date listing of checkusers. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. Remember Sophie Lefèvre? The same crowd are now at it with Jelena Janković. I'm sorely tempted to block the job lot of them. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who could blame you? I certainly wouldn't. On the other hand, if they move this somewhere else, it will be time to start writing up an entry at WP:LAME, and there is at least some amusement in that.  ;-)

I did drop a full protect on the article. I wish only that i were more optimistic that it would make a difference. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understatement. Excuse me butting in, I came here to reply to Joe's pp message. Both this isn't your problem, and Joe, thanks for freezing page but please note that "the same crowd" are quite large here: I count up to 20 different editors reverting Fyunck's WP:TENNISNAMES style ledes over the 100x BLPs affected - it's just that different editors are reverting Fyunck on different BLPs. For example I wasn't among those reverting the Jelena Janković or Saša Hiršzon, but I did revert "Sophie Lefèvre known as Sophie Lefevre" once on 8 April, am pretty certain I have reverted a similar BLP elsewhere, and clearly recall slapping dubious tags on at least 10x of these ledes, though I doubt they are still there. Anyway, the point - There already has been an extensive entry per WP:LAME at WP:TENNISNAMES. It already has been discussed and a conclusion drawn. I've just pasted the relevant sections of WP:AT and MOS Biographies into the Talk of Jelena Janković as Joe requested. But what good will it do? What about them isn't already crystal clear? Do we really have to have Björn Borg featured as in example in WP:OPENPARA before a couple of tennis editors will follow it? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]