User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Kind of a pity that I am currently mostly confined to working on Lascar (volcano) - the prior article was pretty terrible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Licancabur at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Another fine article. Good luck with GA and all the best, Miniapolis 19:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that as well, Miniapolis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

On 10 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kambalny, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a landslide on Kambalny (pictured) during the Holocene caused debris to travel for 20 kilometres (12 mi)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kambalny. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kambalny), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am wondering why you have deleted the page for Laguna Beach local artist Michael J. Lavery.

Thank you, Ryan Lane rrlane@ucsc.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rryanlane (talk • contribs) 23:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Rryanlane:. It was decided to remove the page in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lavery - even if Mr. Lavery's inventions are notable, that does not by default imply that Mr. Lavery itself is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering if you would be willing to share your input here on these files at FFD. Thank you! Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I want to ask about how to get the List of accolades received by Ye Hai Mohabbatein data back. I really appreciate the reason behind it deletion. However we need the data to completed Ye Hai Mohabbatein's page on Accolades section. Best Regards Puchicatos (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Puchicatos: The page was deleted because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Karan Mehra. I guess I could userfy the page so that you can copy the sources over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ya sure, that would be so much helpful. Will wait for it. Thank You. Puchicatos (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Puchicatos: Done on User:Puchicatos/List of accolades received by Ye Hai Mohabbatein. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Wow, so fast. Really appreciate your help. Puchicatos (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This relisted discussion looks about ready for closure, if you have a moment czar 05:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo my name is Dawson, back in August I made an edit that mention Lil Yachty attending Pebblebrook High School. You probably removed my edit because 1. I had no account. 2. I had no resources. I know I made a mistake but I couldn't find any resources I could put down. I, fortunately went to Pebblebrook High School with the aforementioned person. it was my freshman year, while he was a senior.

OPinkDolphin (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @OPinkDolphin: I don't see any edit from me on Pebblebrook High School and while I edited Lil Yachty there is no mention of that High School in the edits I made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You write, "#4 is claiming that the large number of falsehoods in his claims is merely a matter of the base rate fallacy, in these terms - if nobody can substantiate that the base rate fallacy is indeed the reason why so many of his statements have been deemed false, oppose #4 as a misrepresentation."[5]

which is talking about this proposed sentence: "Trump made many controversial statements.... Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate."

That is mostly my arrangement, but I arrived at it by combining a couple of suggestions from other wikipedians on the talkpage. And although I flatter myself that I understand what the base rate fallacy article is talking about, and know how to avoid it most of the time, I must admit I cannot fathom what you mean in your comment about possible misrepresentation. Not that I disagree with what you wrote, necessarily, I just flat out cannot parse what you wrote. Can you explain a little further, what exactly you are trying to say?

I can say, for my own part, that proposed sentence #4 is at least *supposed* to be straightforward, in a logical sequence. Trump said controversial things ("foo is evil"). Controversial things tend to generate media coverage ("Headline#1: Trump attacks foo, scandal erupts"). Celebrities also tend to attract media coverage ("Headline#2: other famous celebs condemn Trump's foo fighter stance"). Conclusion, Trump received billions of dollars of media coverage, ("Headline#3: Trump tweets insults at those other celebs") more than any other candidate for the Republican nomination, ("Headline#4: on Trump's foo stance, Rubio has no comment") and more than Hillary Clinton or any other candidate for the other-party-nominations, too. ("Headline#5: Trump elected; four more years of clickbait")

Implied conclusion, albeit not stated in the wikipedia article, is that part of the reason Trump *won* is that, just as sentence #3 documents, he said a vast number of controversial things, and only a slightly lower quantity of things judged to be outright false. Which gave him tons of exposure, and no news is bad news, per the old saying. Other implied conclusions, such as that perhaps Trump was *intentionally* speaking controversially, to manipulate the media, a skill he learned during his years as a celebrity television personality (wrestling then reality shows), and before that a tabloid personality, are also left to the readership. I gather that you are possibly seeing some *different* implied conclusion, such as perhaps, the only reason that we know more about Trump-falsehoods, is because Trump got more media coverage? Or something like that? I don't see that, but maybe it or some similarly-incorrect implied conclusion is in there, and #4 needs rephrasing. Thanks for your time with my question here, and if you actually don't have time to spend answering me fully, no worries, just let me know. Or if you'd rather stick to article talkpage, that is also fine; since my question was longwinded I brought it here. But I am quite curious what you meant. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the juxtaposition of the statements about the controversiality/falseness of his assertions and the one about the large amount of media coverage comes off, to me at least, like it is trying to claim that the reason so many of his statements are judged as controversial/false is because they are checked more frequently, rather than because they tend to be controversial/false. That's a logical theory, but as far as I know there is no evidence to support it which makes it original research and thus unsuitable for inclusion into the article. Further, if memory serves Politifact and other fact checkers note that a far higher proportion of Trump's statements are false, which would be inconsistent with the theory as well - hence the concern about "misrepresentation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I don't really see the interpretation as being likely, but since you interpreted it thataway, we pretty much have proof positive that at least *some* significant fraction of the readership will also do the same. So we need to fix it, or scrap it. Do you have a suggestion for how we can rephrase? Or is it better in your opinion to just junk proposed sentence #4 from the intro, and deal with the subject of extensive-media-coverage-of-Trump-was-directly-related-to-the-vast-amount-of-controversial-statements-relative-to-other-candidates, down in the body-prose where we have more nuance? I will see if I can think up a re-phrasing as well. Is it just the interposition of the false-clause, in between the controversial-clause and the proposed sentence #4, which is causing the problem? My goal with sentence #4 is to say, that the high-relative-percentage-of-controversy, plus his extant celebrity, led to massive media coverage. But we cannot compromise the goal of sentence #3, which is to state that Trump's relative-percentage-controversial AND his relative-percentage-falsehood numbers were nearly off the charts (and no possibility of mis-measurement nor selection-bias). Not sure how to convey the sentence-4-goal, without screwing up the sentence-3-goal. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a verbiage like "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false. Along with his existing status as a celebrity, they resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate." Need to remember if this conclusion is backed by reliable sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence #4_B is

Along with his existing status as a celebrity, they resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate.

which I fully agree with. It is subtly altered from #4_A which is

Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate.

that you criticized. I'm fine with #4_B or with #4_A, whereas you strongly prefer #4_B. However, you are pairing #4_B with sentence #1, aka the "Many...controversial or false" language, which I disagree with, since I would prefer to use #4_B with sentence #3 or a less-wordy equivalent. So before we get back to the article-talkpage and mention #4_B as a possibility, I will ask whether you are ONLY in favor of #4_B when it is paired with #1, which is to say, do you think that pairing #4_B with #3 would be potentially misinterpreted in the same way that you were against #4_A with #3, or does the altered language eliminate the potential for inadvertent misrepresentation? In short, is this next OK/legit/non-misrepresentational/non-fallacious in your eyes, even if you may prefer the 1+4_B verbiage over this 3+4_B verbiage:

Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false. Along with his existing status as a celebrity, they such statements resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate.

Instead of 'they resulted' it might read better methinks if we say 'such statements resulted' possibly? Otherwise it looks like 'they' is referring to the fact-checkers, not to the controversial-and-false-statements-as-a-whole. Also, thanks for the rewrite-work; as for sources, three are listed at the RfC, but the key quote is from the politico piece which states that '...Trump exploited their [the media's] lust for riveting stories...' which boosted his coverage. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that last version seems OK to me. Mind you, this isn't Talk:Donald Trump so this discussion would be more suited to that page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, we are ready now methinks, I will move it thataway. Thanks for your help, been a pleasure working with you on this.  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
256		Mount Unzen (talk)	Add sources
760		Serpent (symbolism) (talk)	Add sources
2,285		Evangelicalism (talk)	Add sources
112		Ol Doinyo Lengai (talk)	Add sources
91		Faridpur District (talk)	Add sources
172		Deimos (deity) (talk)	Add sources
254		Khan (surname) (talk)	Cleanup
26		Islamia College (Lahore) (talk)	Cleanup
576		Iris (mythology) (talk)	Cleanup
1,775		Eros (talk)	Expand
4		Restoration and tolerance of Paganism from Julian until Valens (talk)	Expand
993		Salar de Uyuni (talk)	Expand
80		Magic in the Graeco-Roman world (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,256		Materialism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
340		Greek sea gods (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
88		Aura (mythology) (talk)	Merge
10		Pakistan Long March (talk)	Merge
1,028		Moirai (talk)	Merge
1,028		Enthalpy of vaporization (talk)	Wikify
1,267		Garuda (talk)	Wikify
218		Snow line (talk)	Wikify
2		Xie Peiyuan (talk)	Orphan
3		Zheng Shiping (talk)	Orphan
2		The First Snows of 2002 (talk)	Orphan
50		Angelos (mythology) (talk)	Stub
7		Artemis Tauropolos (talk)	Stub
16		Tipas (talk)	Stub
10		Aguas Calientes (volcano) (talk)	Stub
71		Thaumas (talk)	Stub
65		Potamoi (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to clog up the AN discussion anymore than necessary, but I did want to continue our discussion. Do you think it's a good idea to limit admin actions in certain interactions? I would think that INVOLVED already handles this, so if there is consensus that an admin is violating INVOLVED deal with it that way. If it's a greater trust issue in general, take it to arbcom. I'm not sure the community handing out admin interaction bans is a smart idea, but I'm willing to give it a shot if consensus leans that way. Do you think I should hat the discussion that followed after my AN vote? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you should leave it as your incisive comment ... it means to me that this admin has lost the trust of the community and shouldn't be an admin at all... has hit the nail squarely on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I think you can leave your comment as it is. My argument there was more of a philosophical point that admin actions can be restricted like any other action one performs here; thus if a problem behaviour pattern is limited to a specific area (such as The Rambling Man in this case might be) trying out a limited restriction should always be considered. I've seen on Commons that proposals to ban admins from performing specific actions are frequently opposed on the grounds that it's a bad idea to restrict admins but I've never understood the reasons why. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I've also seen User: Salvidrim!'s note that such a proposal is technically allowed. However my main point, as quoted by User: The Rambling Man above, still stands as my rationale for the vote. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please archive the article to WP:LHOW (instructions there), because this remained for so long, and also please close the Natalie_Imbruglia:_The_Collection discussion and do the same, thanks. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Champion: I think I got most admin steps; can you do the honours of listing it on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have just finished that bit, thank you very much. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Re Checkuser. You may want to take a look at my sandbox. I was doing some research in the operating practices as a prelude to doing a proposal for a revamped independant auditing committee. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

On 19 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Licancabur Lake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the environment of Licancabur Lake (pictured) on Earth has been compared to early lakes on Mars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Licancabur Lake. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Licancabur Lake), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this article! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Bombing of Nagaoka in World War II.
Message added 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Puaaiki.
Message added 02:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Lascar (volcano) has been completed.

You will see that I removed dozens of duplicate (or more) links to other WP articles. My understanding of their use is that a link can appear once in the lead and once again in the body of the article.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My sense was that using the link just once also works, but your way is probably better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Llullaillaco has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Happy to help. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help me understand what needs to be done to get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dutcher

it states promo however this is her accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacyharper (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Stacyharper: As you can see on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Dutcher, people think that there are not enough sources talking about the subject for us to have an article on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I just wanted to give you some feedback. I think your decision to send that article back to a redirect was extremely poor. During the week it was up, the article was updated to have references from reliable sources such as Rock Paper Shotgun, The Globe and Mail, the University of Michigan, Dr. Nick Montfort, Professor of Comparative Media Studies at MIT and so forth. To see the specific reliable sources requested at the outset handwaved over as "refbombing" was disappointing and should have held no weight. You also had the nominating editor taking things personally, looking for sockpuppets when none were there because his argumentative assertions about the reliable sourcing of "Rock Paper Shotgun" were proven incorrect. Additionally, it undermines the entire process to delete/redirect an article when there isn't a single person advocating that in the debate. In fact, every single person involved voted to keep or wait. Why have the debate if you're going to do what you want anyway? Crepepayments (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I don't want anything ... I've never heard of Hugo before. There were a few people saying that the language was notable without any kind of evidence to support it and others who perceived the references to be mostly unreliable. Looking at the last revision before the redirecting, a sample of most sources supports the notion that they are mostly a) namedrops and/or b) of questionable reliability. As WP:GNG notes, we want substantial (not just a namedrop), independent, reliable sources. Also, Czar did advocate a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility in this matter. Seriously. And I stand corrected on the last redirect vote, I misinterpreted what I see now is quite clear. I think the frustrating part is that within the span of less than 30 minutes we have an accusation of canvassing, the nominating editor taking that as a given (I personally became aware of it through the Wordplay convention a few weeks ago) and then the decision being finalized. Users Rfc1394, scope creep and What cat? all have several thousand edits between them, are software experts, etc. and having the time to respond, had they a chance to do so, would have been nice- I am new to Wikipedia and did not wish to sully the debate as a "spa." I will agree to disagree regarding the quality of sources, as we seemingly had multiple people find on and offline sources over the course of almost 20 years, from 1995 to two days ago. I realize a back and forth like this can be tiresome and I shall bother you no more. :) I thank you sincerely for your time. Crepepayments (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help me understand why exactly the RedVoice page I created today was deleted. I would also like to get the resource page back for future improvement.

I read the previous pages reasons for deletion. The reason for the previous pages deletion was a lack of resources. This time there were resources. There was also new content, so it wasn't identical to the previous pages deletion. It also didn't violate any type of copyrights.

RedVoice is producing more content than groups like Nevada Sports Network at this time, and it had content showing they plan on beginning a game of the week in the next couple of years. It also showed they plan on going into college basketball. In other words they plan on becoming more major than Touchdown Radio and Compass Media Networks, both which have pages that are ok.

So why exactly is RedVoice not acceptable? Is it just because it had the same name as a previously deleted page? Thank you for your time. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Bigddan11: The discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedVoice, LLC decided that the topic is not suitable for an article and your version was deleted because it apparently did not address the issues of the preceding one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That reason is confusing, and I don't understand it. The problem stated on the previous deletion was that it was deleted because it didn't have resources. This one had 3 resources, 2 of which were made within the last year, including one in the last month. Two of the three resources were neutral resources, while the third one was a Premiere Radio Networks press release showing they handle distribution for the RedVoice games. So it did address that issue, and the fact that Premiere Radio Networks assists them ties in another major radio network that is also listed. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Not all resources are equally useful; unreliable sources and passing mentions can't be used. Anyhow, @Deb: did the second deletion so it's them you need to ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you take a look a this? It does appear that the creator of the article was not properly notified by the editor who nominated the article for deletion. FWIW, the article was accepted via AfC and moved to the article namespace by the AfC reviewer and then nominated the same day for deletion the same day. It's easy to understand why the article creator is a bit confused and upset because you have one AfC reviewer moving the draft to the mainspace, and then another AfC reviewer taking it to AfD shortly thereafter. If the first AfC reviewer felt the subject was not notable enough for a stand-alone article, then they shouldn't have approved the draft to begin with. I understand this type of comment is probably pointless now, and I actually do agree with the AfD result; however, I also think things should have been handled a bit better by these two reviewers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Marchjuly:. I don't know why Dodger and SwisterTwister disagreed about the notability of the draft or why the creating editor was not notified. I'll summon @Dodger67, SwisterTwister, and DanHamilton1998: to get this cleared up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have no idea why the editor did not get a notification. Most experienced editors do AFD nominations through Twinkle which automagically sends notifications to relevant users. I don't know how to determine whether SwisterTwister used Twinkle or did the nomination manually. As to why I accepted the article at AFC, see User talk:Dodger67#Ed Brown where I was persuaded to consider the posibility that the subject was not merely another tragic statistic of the endemic crime in certain parts of Chicago society. Given the procedural failure I think Deletion Review might be the next logical step to possibly overturn the deficient AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The answer is that ST doesn't use Twinkle; everything is done manually, and thus notifications aren't always made. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi I can tell you why I wasn't notified, it's because SwisterTwister and I have a long and very painful history of SwisterTwister going after articles I write and making silly claims against notability. SwisterTwister wanted to push the deletion through without there being a discussion because SwistaTwista knows I would win the argument because I wouldn't propose the subject if the the subject wasn't notable. Ed Brown is very notable. The arguments used to claim deletion had absolutely no basis in reality of the sport of boxing. I know there are real boxing people that edit here at Wikipedia because they've written some very excellent articles about contemporary and historic boxers and once one of them get's on this story they will defend its notability. It needs editing sure but this subject has undeniable notability. Ed Brown boxed professionally on international TV twice. I hope SwisterTwister will be reprimanded. It's funny every time I think wow Wikipedia is a bunch of quacks an editor with integrity steps up and sucks be back in. Thank you so much, MarchJuly. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@DanHamilton1998: I know you have had some bad experiences and that you are frustrated, but please try to continue to assume good faith, especially when it comes to actins taken by other editors. You should've been notified of the discussion as the creator of the article, but the failure to do so could've have just been nothing more than a regretful oversight and not some personal vendetta. Please try not to cast asperisons unless you have verifiable proof of such things. If you feel action should be taken against another editor, then the place to do that is at WP:ANI.

Finally, as I pointed out on your user talk, articles may be nominated/tagged for deletion (even multiple times) at anytime by any editor which is why it is very important that the subject's Wikipedia notability is clearly established, which in this case would be WP:BIO. The editors who participated in the AfD are not required to be experts of "boxing" or any subject and are only required to base their arguments on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia notability is determined by whether the subject has received the sigificant coverage (as defined by the Wikipedia community) in multiple independent reliable sources (again as defined by the Wikipedia community), and not by the "reality of the sport of boxing" or the "reality of anything". If there are lots of comments in a AfD discussion that the subject is of questionable notability or the sources are not showing notability, then those concerns need to be taken seriously and addressed. My suggestion here is for you to request Jo-Jo Eumerus via WP:DRV or WP:REFUND (not sure which of the two is more appropriate in this case) to re-add the article to your userspace where you can continue working on it, perhaps along the lines suggested above by Dodger67, and find better sources which address the concerns raised in the AfD. Perhaps you can ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing . Then, if the improvements requested have been made, you can re-submit the draft once again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

DRV would be more appropriate, since it was delete via AFD. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

MarchJuly you know that SwistaTwista is not acting in good faith. I already went through a ridiculous 4 week battle with SwistaTwista over the notability of Bill Hillmann, that article has about 50 sources from major news outlets from around the world now. That battle with SwistaTwista ended with SwistaTwista being scolded by a more experienced editor because the subject was clearly incredibly notable. Do you really want me to believe SwistaTwista is acting in good faith? That would just be silly after SwistaTwista clearly acted in bad faith with my last article. Now I have supplied major news outlets for the Ed Brown article including The Washington Post (and before SwistaTwista can call the Post an "indie blog" I will note that the Post is worth more than a billion dollars and circulates over a million copies daily), the LA Times which is comparable and the Chicago Tribune which has shrunk to just under a billion dollar net worth. So maybe just maybe the Trib is kind of an indie blog.... but no, actually indie blogs are run out of parent's basements, where I'm sure SwistaTwista does most of their editing and indie blogging. There have also been multiple TV segments on Ed Brown before his murder. Again I will define notable, when people take note of the subject, when three of the Nations biggest outlets take notes then take money and print them in full feature pieces about a combined 2.5 million times, the subject is then defined as notable. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you DanHamilton1998 in that I do not know any such thing about SwisterTwister. (You should also try to get an editor's username right if you're going to constantly refer to them.) I am only suggesting that you try and assume good faith and remain civil as much as possible. If you start accusing other editors of things, you are eventually going to be asked to back up your accusations at WP:ANI because unsubstantiated allegations will eventually be seen as a personal attack if continued. While it's true that SwisterTwister did nominate the article for deletion, multiple editors also commented that they did not feel Brown satisfied the relevant notability guidelines. Assuming in good faith that they all looked at the article and the sources you provided before !voting, then they basically supported the nomination. It is these comments, not just the nomination, that the closing admin assessed when making their close. A closing admin pretty much only assesses the comments made and determines if a consensus based upon relevant policies/guidelines has been reached either way. Moreover, Wikipedia notability is not based upon how you define notability or on how I define notability; it's is based upon how the Wikipedia community has determined through consensus to define notability. So, if you feel there is something wrong with the notability guidelines, then you can raise the issue at WT:N if you like and see if others agree with you.

As I suggested above, I think you can probably get the deleted article userfied, so that you can continue to work on it and find additional/better sources. You can also request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV as pointed out by Primefac if you like and if the conditions for such a review are satisfied. I would suggest, however, that you avoid trying to use DRV to discuss the behavior of any particular editor or editors. That kind of discussion is more appropriate for ANI. A DRV discussion should focus on why you feel the article's deletion was incorrect based upon relevant policies/guidelines and you should be willing to provide additional sources (if you found any) which show that WP:NEXIST might be applicable. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

On 29 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lake Tauca, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the now non-existent Lake Tauca formerly covered large parts of the Altiplano of South America? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Tauca. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lake Tauca), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am having trouble finding the Ed Brown Boxer article which was deleted recently. I was hoping you would un-delete it, if you would be so kind. Thank you. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @DanHamilton1998:. The page was at Ed Brown (boxer), where do you want it restored to? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, either back to the public or to my sandbox I would like to restart the debate about notability. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@DanHamilton1998: done on User:DanHamilton1998/Ed Brown (boxer). Remember to address the notability issue; if you can't prove it, the draft will need to be deleted again.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for your help. I have included many new inline citations and more evidence of notability including video of an internationally broadcast professional boxing match which Ed Brown won broadcast on CBS Sports Network. I would like to move a head with discussion of notability and potential nominations for deletion. Thank you so much for your help. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanHamilton1998. I just want to let you know that I removed the link you've added to that CBS video per WP:COPYLINK. External links to videos, etc. which were likely uploaded to the Internet without the copyright holder's explicit permission are not allowed even in citations per WP:EL#cite_note-7. Looking at the quality of that video, it seems more likely to have been taped and uploaded by someone other than CBS Sports. If you can find similar footage on an official CBS website, then you can probably link to that as long it is clear that CBS is the original content creator; otherwise, be careful with sites like YouTube or Dailymotion which rely on largely on user submitted content. A newspaper/magazine article about the fight would also work if you can find one. It doesn't have to be available online; you only have to show it has been published and can be accessed by someone as explained in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taftan (volcano) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

	Congratulations, it's a...
	Wikipedia Good Article!! (complete with a bit of Taftan quartz]...) Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Taftan (volcano) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Taftan (volcano) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)