User talk:Joe Decker

Please leave new sections at the bottom of the page, not the top. Pressing "New section" will do the right thing. Thank you.

Political scandals

User:Joe Decker

I am asking you to re-instate the deleted article List of State and local political scandals in the United States for three reasons

First, review time was too short The list was deleted after only 14 days of discussion. I note that an RfD at List of Federal Political Scandals in the United States took two months to resolve. I would liked to have commented but couldn’t .

Second, a warning could have been issued rather than a deletion Many of the reasons given for deletion were misquotes or misrepresentations of Wiki policy. For instance, the first reason for deetion given was a lack of multiple references, yet WP:BLP is asking only for multiple sources per article, not per item. I quote;

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis mine) OR All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article.(emphasis mine)

Multiple sources are of course available for each citation in this article and can be added if you require it. Deletion of the entire piece was not necessary, a warning would have sufficed.

Third, a history of long term harassment There are now six spinoffs of the original 2004 article List of Federal political scandals of the United States each subdividing and expanding the original subject. List of Federal political scandals of the United States was already nominated for deletion in 26 November 2010. The result of the discussion was delete, which was overturned at DRV. Note that an editor named Collect was active in that discussion and had voted to delete.

Two years later, on 8 August 2012 at a companion to the original, List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, an RfC was begun by Collect which, by redefining the word ‘politician’ would have halved the scope of the article. Administrator User:Jc37 ruled no consensus was reached.

About two years later, on 7 February 2015 another RfC at List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes was again begun by Collect which, (using different terms) by redefining the word ‘politician’ would have again, halved the scope of the article. Administrator User:AlbinoFerret ruled no consensus was reached.

What also may be pertinent is a very long discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence which included contentious editing and wikilawyering and puppetry. I couldn’t follow all of it, but I did find he was blocked as recently as 2 March 2015 for edit warring. (He has quite a history and I can’t tell if he was/is blocked from editing political articles) And for all that Collect himself has not weighed in on this call for deletion.

I also find it interesting that after a six months hiatus, Anythingyouwant suddenly springs back to life and immediately nominates two political articles for deletion. I am no expert on puppets, but I do not think this is a coincidence. Puppets have been noted in all of these discussions, but please note the lack of civility, argumentative style and similar points made by the editors calling for deletion.

If you cannot in good conscious restore the article, or pass it along for further review, could you place a copy of it on my user page? Perhaps it can be rewritten.Polarpark (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Polarpark, as I have explained elsewhere, it is not puppetry, and is just a coincidence (a very minor one at that). But I have been sanctioned for less, so you have that going for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Polarpark:,

I'm not going to rescind my decision at AfD, and given the nature of the consensus, I think I'll opt not to draftify it as well, as BLP issues were a concern raised in the discussion. With regard to that, you are welcome to appeal to WP:DRV.

As far as allegations of sockpuppetry, I"m having a great deal of trouble taking this specific allegation seriously, both @Anythingyouwant: and @Collect: have a long history here, and while I've met neither in person, I'd be shocked if they were puppets, their views are in many ways quite distinct, and consistently so over many years. That's not proof, mind you, but nah, really. I doubt it. If you still believe I'm wrong on this point, WP:SPI would be the right venue, not me, for a number of reasons. Friendly advice? Just try DRV. Best of luck, --j⚛e decker^talk 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

==Deletion review for List of state and local political scandals in the united states==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of state and local political scandals in the united states. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Polarpark (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'm sure DRV will act in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:42:31, 26 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 109.154.42.185

• 109.154.42.185 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:1867 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Joe,

This move was already referred to in Ken McMullen's filmography, but was an unresolved reference, hence why I tried to add something.

I think if it had a dangling reference, it deserves to have something!

I'm not a regular contributor here - but looked up the movie and say the dangling reference and tried to help.

109.154.42.185 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I think it's great that you want to expand red links, and I absolutely appreciate your efforts here, and I'm sorry if my note came off as anytihng less.

Our basic hurdle (which really is not very well explained to irregular editors here, I'm sorry) for writing an article about a subject is our general notability guideline, which insists on the existence of a certain depth and reliability of sources on a topic. As far as having something at AfC, we ask that editors put in references that show that the subject meets that guideline, it avoids a lot of painful and frustrating deletion discussions going forward, as frustrating as this "extra lap" is, trust me, the deletion process is worse.

With respect to films, there are a number of places you can go to get help finding sources that will work to get the draft approved. I'd start with the WP:WikiProject Film talk page, there are some active editors knowledgable about places to mine sources about film. I'd really suggest leaving a note there, and asking for a hand. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joe - that sounds like more effort that I'm able to commit. No problem will know for next time. Seems odd that you guys prefer red links - but you know what you're doing - and Wikipedia is a great source - so it's clearly working. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

- Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.42.185 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for undeletion

Hi Joe Decker its Inter&anthro, I was interested if you were willing to undelet the following articles; [[2014 AFC Challenge Cup Group A, 2014 AFC Challenge Cup Group B, and 2014 AFC Challenge Cup knockout stage. I have found enough sources to make a detailed match summary so the articles will pass WP:NOTSTATS, which was the main reason they were deleted in the deletion debate a year ago. Since you were the administrator who closed the deletion discussion this is why I am contacting you.

Here is a quick example for the Kyrgyzstan - Palestine game which was the first match of the tournament:

In the first match of the final edition of the AFC Challenge Cup was an even affair until the last minute of stoppage time when substitute Abdelhamid Abuhabib struck from a corner to win the game. It was a rather even game till then with Palestine having the best chances, with Hilal Musa having a shot just go over in the last minute of the first half as well in the 50th minute when he was completely unmarked in front of goal but he couldn't direct his shot on target. Palestine had an excellent chance with 20 minutes remaining when Ashraf Nu'man played a perfect pass to Tamer Seyam but Pavel Matiash made a fine save to deny the forward. Kyrgyzstan's best chance came in the first minute of the second half when naturalized striker David Tetteh got his head to a cross but it wasn't the best connection and straight at Ramzi Saleh. Afterwards Palestinian coach Jamal Mahmoud praised his players for never giving up at what he called a very even game, while Kyrgyz coach Sergey Dvoryankov prmossied that the best had yet to be seen from his players and blamed the tropic humidity and heat for his player's performance.

Thank you very much. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to decline, but you're welcome to appeal at WP:DRV. The Madivelive sources were in the article at the time of the discussion, which leads me to believe they were in view of the participants in the discussion. I can mail you a copy of one or more of the articles if it would be of help. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Another article restoration request

Hi, I'd like you to consider undeleting the Michael_Mills_(musician) page. The band Toehider (of which Mills is the writer/main performer) have had multiple release on a record label (Birds Robe http://www.birdsrobe.com) which seems to pass the first criteria of WP:MUSICBIO DavidTReynolds (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must decline--MUSICBIO 1 isn't about releases by the artist, it's about biographical reportage about the artist. Let me know if I've misunderstood your argument. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 04:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Support request with team editing experiment project

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Thanks for the notice, I'll try and take a look. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Anoomi

Hi Joe

You was deleted the entry of Anoomi. why? I don"t understand how to manage here... I will be glad if you can recover the page of Anoomi

Thanks!

Eyal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalshalom (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

The short version is that I deleted it after deciding that the consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anoomi was to do so.

The longer version is that articles on Wikipedia are subject to meeting a standard which is based on the degree of signficant, reliable, independent media coverage they have received. Stuff that the reader would, if they knew the source, agree was neutral, reliable, and arm's length from the topic--like a newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher. The participants in the discussion didn't appear to feel the subject had gotten that degree of coverage. You can read more about the policy about that at WP:GNG.

The discussion participants also raised issues of conflict of interest. I didn't come to an particular conclusion about that, as I didn't need to. But if you are associated with the subject of the article, I'd recommend reading WP:PSCOI, it can be very helpful for people in that situation.

You may also wish to ask any questions you have at the WP:Teahouse. it's a Q&A resource for editors new to Wikipedia's often-confusing ways. I hope it's helpful. Best of luck! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User Creating Unnecessary FNAF Pages

This user here has been, for no reason, actively creating pages on Wikipedia about Five Nights at Freddy's, and these pages consist almost entirely of irrelevant information and unsourced speculation.

The first two I could find are this one and this one (I made it a redirect link, so you'll have to look at the redirect to actually see what has been going on). I was able to (partially) take care of the latter, which was very short and based entirely on speculation, but I don't even know how to begin with the first one.

I think an admin really needs to step in, because both of those pages are heavily speculation-reliant, poorly written (in some areas), and have no use outside of the game itself. You were the first admin I could think of that has done anything related to FNAF pages before (when you deleted some other page about FNAF Minigames before), so would you consider those pages good candidates for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerwhale24680 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look later today, but you may want to consider putting these to AfD and/or putting a note at WP:ANI if I'm unable to. Sorry for the delay. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Done --j⚛e decker^talk 15:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)