User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 9#Disambiguation link notification for December 29

I was tempted to add your user profile link to this article: not the baseball player. Happy New Year! --S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

: Ha! :) Thanks :) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When you nominate a page for deletion via Twinkle, the AfD notice is placed on the article before the AfD is created; this leaves a "this article's entry" redlink in the notice itself; given how many AfD candidates are created by new or new-ish users, I imagine that this could be somewhat confusing - mousing over "this article's entry", only to be informed that "this page does not exist" (although, of course, it does). I've been meaning to ask one of my programmer wikifriends if they'd be willing to write a bot script to purge all recently-AfD-nominated articles (or XfD in general, I suppose), only to stumble on your userpage recently, and find that you already have a bot that does it! It's obviously not a major issue, but if we can make a new user's experience here even slightly less confusing, we should. If I understand your description of the bot correctly, all you'd have to do is add the various XfD pages to the list of pages it traverses. Or would we have to create categories for XfD-nominated pages (which could probably be accomplished by a simple consensus at BRFA)? Anyways, what do you think? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

: I've seen the redlinks and I think it'd be great to find a fix for 'em. Let me look later today for possible other ways of doing it--I would have no objection to extending JNB to another set of pages, there may just be a better way to get the same result: or a better one, right now, the Null Bot only runs more-or-less daily. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

:: Well, it would work, kinda. I could sort through the proper directory and purge it all. But I doubt we'd get consensus to run it constantly, it's kinda an ugly hack anyway. What would seem preferable to me is if we could get Twinkle itself to do this right, but I haven't quite sorted through Twinkle enough to figure out why it doesn't already work. Humph. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What is AfD? Henrib736 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

: Hi! I was just leaving you a note about that. :) The short answer is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (also known as WP:AFD), I hope that I left a longer answer at your talk page. But let me know if I can explain further. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

fyi, I have reverted [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AJeopardy!&diff=531525440&oldid=518407631 this edit] as pointless. the category was inside the noinclude tag. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

: Thanks, that was an error. (I've been fixing a very large number of category-inclusion-in-userspace problems reading through the Polluted Categories listing, I'll go back and see if there was another issue there.) Again, thanks!

:: Ahh, I'd misattributed the inclusion of User talk:Continental738 into :Category:Jeopardy! to that template, whereas the problem was coming from another source. And of course, the location in noinclude should have made that obvious. I'll be more careful. Thanks again. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Darcey-Alden 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 high-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. Bgwhite (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

: I'll notify the guy who actually started the article, I just put in a redirect after a previous deletion-by-PROD. And maybe stop in for an opinion, too. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 05:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maxwell v. Dow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

: {{done}}, thanks Mr. Bot. ;-) --j⚛e decker^talk 14:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

: {{done-t}} --j⚛e decker^talk 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. As the admin who deleted the expired BLPPROD and created a previous redirect last year, I wondered if you'd care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Darcey-Alden. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

: {{done-t}} --j⚛e decker^talk 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and salt of the userpage, but this sandbox page should also be salted in view of its abuse by those various IPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

: {{done-t}} I don't know if that will really solve the larger problem of any subpages, but no harm in a little salt there. Thanks for the report! --j⚛e decker^talk 06:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

: Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for signing on! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::Boooo, where's my fancy invite? Joe always gets invited to the cool parties! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::: Ponyo, you are hereby, irrevocably invited to any cool party I'm invited to. :) --j⚛e decker^talk 00:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I was not the person with inappropriate syntax who placed the category n the talk page your edit summary, while amusing, should really be in a note addressed to the person who wrote it there. It does rather look as if you are telling me off :). It would have been just as simple to remove it quietly, the more so since the person who caused this to happen was not me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

: Hey, I'm really sorry that came off as snarky, I've been doing a thousand of the darn things clearing out Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories, and I've tried to settle down to an edit summary I could put in automatically and not be too bitey to the newbies, and provide a little of an explanation. I can see on reflection where it'd come off as pretty snarky to established users, though, which wasn't my intent. I'm sorry about that, and I'll try and apply a little more clue going forward. Thanks for your good humor! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::No worries :) I never noticed that page had grabbed itself a cat anyway :) The edit summary just needs an "If some other editor did it yadda yadda yadda" part Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting Jeremy Clarkson. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

: No problem, that was one of the longer lists of protection logs I'd ever seen. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I need your help. I wonder if you have any alternative hooks. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

: I haven't found a source that says it directly, but the timing of the case might be a direction to look in, the FFDCA had really only taken effect as of the start of 1940, so this was one of the first cases prosecuted under it, and *handwaving* one of the first times the federal government had any effect on quack medical remedies. I'll see if I can look more through stuff later today. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

:: George, can you do anything with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._11_1%2F4_Dozen_Packages_of_Articles_Labeled_in_Part_Mrs._Moffat%27s_Shoo-Fly_Powders_for_Drunkenness&diff=532418332&oldid=530830932 this]? --j⚛e decker^talk 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::: E.g., "One of the first official actions of the FDA was filing the lawsuit 'United States vs. 11 .... blah blah blah. I don't think that' quite the right wording, but you get where I"m going. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• well spotted on the NZ animator. I should have seen that. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• No worries, I have found several places over the years where I've made the same mistake myself. It happens, just wanted to explain why I undid it. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 03:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, bless your heart! By an odd coincidence, I've got a copy of the Barrows book waiting at the central Milwaukee Public Library for me to pick up. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

: Thank you kindly! Want me to send the article itself along? --j⚛e decker^talk 17:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

::You bet! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

::: Ha! Email with linkage on its way! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Where is it, has it been created since his death? I am not finding it - Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman - Youreallycan 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

: I was utterly, completely confused. I could swear I saw something to that effect yesterday, and I was clearly and completely wrong. My apologies. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

::No worries, perhaps one was created and has been deleted under a variant of her name - nothing to apologise for - ta for the clarification - Youreallycan 21:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

::: Thanks for your graceful understanding. Much appreciated. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

: Not mine, requested on the part of a third party. I'll pass along the message. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Joe, i edited the cully symington page by deleting a few things. He asked me to do so because his current work is all he cares to mention. thanks for keeping an eye on it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticus5758 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

: I see another editor has reinstated the material as well, I don't see any direct reason the material is problematic, can you explain why Symington wants it removed? --j⚛e decker^talk 01:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Joe. Your note at WP:RPP says you semi'd it for a week, but it looks as if it actually got the PC treatment :( Your choice, of course, (although I always prefer the former) but I wonder whether your finger slipped or you changed your mind. (Either way, I have serious egg on my face, having somehow missed the fact that I was requesting protection on a vandalized version :p ). Anyway, thanks for the quick response. Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

: Whoops. I've fixed that, you're request for semi, and my intention do give it semi, was on-target. Sorry about that! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

:: And now, I really do need my morning coffee. :p --j⚛e decker^talk 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Me too . . . but unfortunately, I never touch the stuff. Rivertorch (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

:::: Very wise. :) --j⚛e decker^talk 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thank you very much for the barnstar! :) Zoeb (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pondicherry. 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, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

: RFC disappeared before I got a chance to look at it. Weird. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Go to Template talk:MOS-TW. It already appears that someone made a comment asking for a change to be made. (An unregistered user made an edit to the talk page; please comment on it quickly.) Georgia guy (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

: Meh, more proselytizing nonsense. I gave them some instruction on how to actually live within Wikipedia policies. BTW, they're apparently upset about Alexis Reich. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey {{BASEPAGENAME}} - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

: Thanks, most appreciated. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. 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) 07:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

: {{done-t}} --j⚛e decker^talk 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I note that you were the closing admin for the page Rutvik Oza, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutvik Oza, which discussion resulted in a deletion. The page has recently been recreated at Rutvik Oza (mathematician) with substantially the same problems and sourcing as in the deleted article, and SPAs for the primary contributors. Would re-nominating the article for deletion be the next step, or is there an admin process for deleting recreated articles? Thanks, Dialectric (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

: When it's so clearly a copy of an article deleted by discussion, it's eligible for speedy deletion, criteria G4. You can just mark an article of that kind with {{tl|db-repost}}, and it'll get deleted pretty quick if appropriate. I've gone ahead and made the deletion, and protected Rutvik Oza (mathematician) from recreation, and I'll look and see if there's anything else effective I might be able to do to keep this from popping up at future titles. Thanks for the catch! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Turns out there's a potentially relevant sock-puppet investigation as well, I reopened it. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). 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) 02:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{done}} Looks like a mistake to me. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Input is needed on a an RfC. You were randomly selected from the WP:FRS list of editors willing to help with RfCs. If you have a moment, your help would be appreciated at the RfC about the Nobel Prize. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{done}} --j⚛e decker^talk 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider the article List of 2012 Tamil soundtracks. I mentioned my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 Tamil soundtracks. Thanks. --Inbamkumar86 (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

: I'm sorry that the article was deleted, but the participating editors involved unanimously felt that the article did not meet our notability guidelines, in particular, WP:LISTN. The notability of list intersections is, as is mentioned in that policy, not particularly cleanly defined by the community. I'm not an expert in this particular subject matter, but if you are, a common way of showing notability in lists is to find reliable secondary sources which are about and go into depth on the precise topic, in this case, 2012 Tamil Soundtracks. By "this precise topic", it would have to be articles that aren't just about a particular 2012 Tamil soundtrack, or a 2012 soundtracks in general, or what have you. I'm personally open to the idea that those articles exist, and if a couple of them did, I'd support recreation of your article without review at WP:DRV. If there are such articles, would you be open to doing a draft that demonstrates that in your Sandbox? --j⚛e decker^talk 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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) 21:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Macedonian First League was recently added to the list of non-fully pro leagues at WP:FPL, so I'm going through and PROD'ing articles which don't meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. As a result I've tagged quite a few articles for deletion and am unsure as to which one you mean. In any case, I appreciate your input. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

: Ahh, my bad. Thanks for the explanation! I was looking at Martin Blaževski‎, for what it's worth, but I didn't DEPROD it. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the article regarding Rutvik Oza. The article has been resent for submission and is available at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rutvik_Oza. It has now been supported with adequate references. I would be thankful to you if you verify the same. THANKS! BEST STAR 907 (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2013 (IST)

: Hi, BEST STAR 907! it appears that your article was declined again. The issue the reviewer raised largely revolves around the "reliability" of your sources. Wikipedia articles generally must be based in sources that meet our WP:RS criteria, which generally revolves around newspapers, magazines, and books that are published by reputable organizations and which have a complete editorial process. While this does not rule out web sources, it does rule out self-published sources, such as [http://www.mynews.in/News/social_activist_rutvik_oza_supports_delhi_braveheart_N535030.html this], and [http://www.groundreport.com/Media_and_Tech/Rutvik-Oza-Voices-Against-Web-Censorship/2950544 probably this], general web sites that don't have an editorial process such as [http://www.rutvik.poetrycraze.com/ this] and [http://worldver2.blogspot.in/p/team-20.html this]. I understand that it takes some time to make sense of our WP:RS policy if you haven't been working with it before. The only source that I've been able to find that meets WP:RS about Oza [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-18/ahmedabad/28086098_1_students-debate-class-x-board-exams-young-minds only mentions him in passing], which is not enough in the way of sources to meet our general notability guideline. However, I may have missed sources that would meet these criteria. I'm sorry, but without further sources that meet WP:RS and that talk in depth about Oza, it's unlikely that we'll be able to have an article on this interesting fellow. I'm very sorry. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

{{tmbox

|style = notice

|small =

|image = Image:Updated DYK query.svg

|text = On 7 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Government brought 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness to court? {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at .|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness.|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness.}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [http://stats.grok.se/en/201302/United_States_v._11_1/4_Dozen_Packages_of_Articles_Labeled_in_Part_Mrs._Moffat%27s_Shoo-Fly_Powders_for_Drunkenness quick check]) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

}} KTC (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice work with United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness. J04n(talk page) 18:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

: Hey, thanks! It's great to hear from you, I hope things are well! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Can I have the article Gage,_Randy_Paul emailed to me or have it userfied.

Thanks,

Zhankus (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{done}}, I dropped a copy in your email. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ward-Nasse Gallery. 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) 15:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{notdone}} --j⚛e decker^talk 00:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for finding and adding it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

: My pleasure! Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Guidice 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 high-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. Cnilep (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

: I've responded, I agree with the nomination. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe, please accept my thanks for your kind words and support during my RfA. The objective evaluations of my work by you and several other editors meant a lot. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

: My pleasure. Sorry to hear it didn't work out, I missed a lot of the later stages of the RfA. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 16:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

{{whale}} Don't paste talk page messages on a user page! Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Well, that was stupid of me! Sorry about that. :) --j⚛e decker^talk 16:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Image:Tournesol.png Thank you for the way you've managed this.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Oh, thank you, that's very kind, given that I notice you'd tried to work to improve the article. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Heterophobia. 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.

: Thanks for the note. It would have been appropriate, however, to discuss the deletion with me before filing for DRV, as noted in the first instruction on that page. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. 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) 10:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{done}} --j⚛e decker^talk 18:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=538108070&oldid=537906171 this edit] but then again, you didn't make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&curid=5042916&diff=538165060&oldid=538108070 this one either]. You might want to talk to the bots before you start adding material to wikidata and removing it from en. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

: RubinBot is a known issue (see Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard#Wikidata), by doing a handful of articles already on my watchlist (essentially, those I created and one I wanted to do a null edit on anyway), I'm hoping to be able to identify any more slipping by the anti-interwikibot edit filter that's, apparently, already been created. :-) --j⚛e decker^talk 21:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:: PS, thanks for the heads up, anyway. ;-) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. 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) 05:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{notdone}} I don't think I've much useful to contribute there. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joe, I recently decided to do some work on the Home Care Assistance page. I was surprised to see that it didn't exist, and that it had been deleted. I've added some good sources and think it's newsworthy. I'm going to expand it soon but wanted to get some of your input before I do so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp666 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

: Hi JackP666. Thanks for helping to try and improve our encyclopedia! I haven't had a chance to look at this much, but I can provide a little bit of background. The discussion that led to the article being deleted you can read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Home_Care_Assistance here]. The primary issue was the sourcing behind Wikipedia's so-called "notability" rules, which can be found at WP:GNG. Roughly speaking, you want two or more sources, both of which go into depth about the subject (the article that mentions the company twice in passing but doesn't talk much about it doesn't count), from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source (generally a mainstream magazine, published book, or newspaper that *isn't* just a warmed over press release) --the Huffington post blog entry isn't going to help you because of that, and which is written independently from the subject (again, a problem with the blog entry from HuffPo.) And, the article should be written primarily from what those articles that meet all there criteria say, not from personal knowledge, although a few uncontroversial details can usually be filled in from more direct sources (e.g., the year the company was founded, etc.) If the article is nominated for a deletion discussion again, I hope that this explanation will provide helpful. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joe, Sorry for this, but I have no other way to reach out to you. For some unknown reason, the editor recently on the Paul Barresi page, slaughtered your accurate and unbiased fine work and decided, as have many other editors favoring the gay aspects of my career, to discount the fact, I was a heterosexual porn star and my first on camera xxx appearance was Coed Fever. Furthermore, this editor who changed much of what you wrote, says I was in an experimental porn film called LA Plays Itself, which I was not. My first film was The Wild Party, shortly after I got out of the military, followed by Playgirl, then Coed Fever and many other straight vids. Maybe you can explore the reason as to why the unfair and inaccurate reporting continues. Moreover, why the page fashions me as a gay porn star, when in fact, I was a straight porn star. My list of credits as a porn star in the straight xxx arena speaks for itself and should be noted first at bottom of page. Also, the list of credits, in the gay porn vids, says I appeared in them, suggesting in sex roles. If I appeared in any gay videos I produced and directed, it was in a speaking role only. Anyway, hope you can help. Regards, Paul Barresi

: Hi, I'll take a look at this tonight, sorry for the delay. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• May be it is interested to take a look at article Nandini Sahu nomination for 2-deletion discussion, because your were previously involved too. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• : Thank you. Because i was involved there previously in an administrative capacity, I'm going to not get involved in the new discussion, and let other more uninvolved editors make their case. In terms of making your case, you may wish to review WP:IRS and WP:GNG. Have a great day, and best of luck!! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yousuf-e Payambar (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Times (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• {{done}} excuse my talk page stalking, you may want to try out this script importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js, it highlights any links to dab pages, I find it very helpful. See you around, J04n(talk page) 11:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Thanks! (I love talk page stalkers!) --j⚛e decker^talk 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata-logo-en.svgYou are receiving this as you have recently deleted an interwiki link on a page that is not currently on Wikidata.

Please either make sure ALL links are on Wikidata before removing them OR leave the removal of interwiki links to bots.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

: I'll drop you a note, I think this was an interwiki link to a deleted article. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAddshore&diff=539957493&oldid=539955939 here]. I thought I would drop a question here. How can you always be sure that articles from different language Wikipedias can be unambiguously matched? My initial thought is: well, it can't be so simple... Is there a way in Wikidata to match two articles in one language to a single one in another language? For example, for the English "trade secret" article, you have matched it to the French "secret commercial" rather than "secret industriel". But how do you know that this is more appropriate? Maybe it means that the two French articles should be merged. Maybe it means that there is unequivocal match. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

: My pleasure!

: Yep, you are exactly right here, there are cases where there is no possibility of an unambiguous match, where the way one language and culture frames a category is just a tiny bit different than another. Of course, if those framings are very different, we usually just end up with separate Wikidata entries, and if they're very similar, they're usually mapped together, but there are always going to be grey areas. Ontology is messy, sadly.

: With regard to trade secret, I went back and looked more, and decided to punt this one upstairs for a community discussion at d:Wikidata:Interwiki_conflicts#Q602938. Merging is definitely one option, I'm just not fluent enough in French to really be sure I have the smell of the distinction being made between the terms in the two FRWIKI articles. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOTREQ#Purging Main Page at regular intervals. Given the discussion since your last comment there, it seems very likely, to me at least, that it would be absurd to request bot approval for a purge at 15 minute intervals. But I would much rather this be part of an admin's documented bot than something that might go away if I get hit by a bus. Please advise at WP:BOTREQ. Thanks. Neo Poz (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

: Cool, I'll take a look. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

{{tb|User_talk:AlanM1#Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case.2Fdoc}} —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

: Replied there, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::Updates posted at {{Section link|Template talk:Infobox_SCOTUS_case|AlanM12013022601}}. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:::: Hey, thanks. I see you're talking to MZMcBride, who is going to be of far more help than I'll be able too. Thanks for all your efforts! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. 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) 23:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{notdone}} tl;dr --j⚛e decker^talk 01:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made necessary changes to the article Rutvik Oza. I think it has now been supported with adequate references. I would be thankful to you if you verify the same. THANKS! BEST STAR 907 talk 23:00, 22 February 2013 (IST)

: Hi, sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I'll let one of the folks well-versed in AfC reviewing give the news, but I still believe, as we discussed before, that some of those aren't really up to what we ask for at WP:RS, although several look better. Also, you've got some formatting errors, if you want to use the syntax that uses square brackets and has a URL to begin with, you'll need to be sure to include the http:// or https:// on each URL, or it won't work properly. Hope this helps! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Do not create hoaxes. 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) 18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

: {{done}} --j⚛e decker^talk 01:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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) 15:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• {{notdone}} --j⚛e decker^talk 15:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Joe,

I am owner of Bloomex, the floral company operating in Canada, Australia and USA. We employ 200+ people and do quite a volume in floral deliveries.

We have an article on Wikipedia, which does not reflect the truth about company or operations mainly due to efforts of CliffC and bots he creates. Any success to combat him are ineffecgtive due to his experience as Wikipedia editor and obvious luck of interest from Wikipedia public to Bloomex.

You are very trusted and experienced editor and

I would like to ask your help in either removing article completely or leaving it with set of true facts reflecting many years of work, customers we served and dedication and hard work of employees.

Sincerely

Dimitri Lokhonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

: Hi Dimitri, ... I'm afraid I won't be able to help this time around, I'm about to be away from Wikipedia for a long enough period of time that you'll probably want to look elsewhere. I certainly hear your concerns about WP:UNDUE, I expect that discussing this and reaching a conclusion will take more time than I can provide. Best of luck, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

::I know you're away, but before you get trapped into his scheme of misusing WP:UNDUE, note that a vast vast majority of sources only cover the controversy. In this way, it would be not giving due weight to not have a majority of the article about the controversies. If you'd like to see my longer response, it's here. Thanks. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

::: Perhaps I overspoke--the concern the original poster was expressing was more or less an UNDUE complaint, as it was written. I intended to express empathy for it, rather than endorsing it, I'd want to spend some real time looking at what information exists and such before I made any conclusions whatsoever there. If I get more time away from driving and sleeping the next few days, I'll take a look, thanks. Cheers, --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

::::If you don't want to, you don't have to. I can assure you that there is no issue, other than the user wishing to have the controversies his company has erased from the internet. That won't happen. He doesn't listen, and forum shops for other people to try to get a favorable response when he's been told by many now that it's not going to happen. Thanks though :) Have a nice trip. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)