User talk:Jasoncalacanis

Welcome!

Hello, Jasoncalacanis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (Note: this welcome was added after the Xeni warning.) CMacMillan 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeni Jardin[edit]

Regarding Xeni Jardin, you are now in violation of the Three Revert Rule. I am now going to undo your changes and further reversions by you may result in an account blocking.

However, I'd like it not to get that far. A good number of people have discussed this, came to a concensus and are watching this page. Your changes -will- be reverted if you continue to bypass that concensus. --Kickstart70·Talk 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the wikipedia community i think including a hate/stalker site is not a good idea. I want to reopen the discussion... I am within my rights to bring up the discussion correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoncalacanis (talk • contribs)

Yes! Fully within your "rights" and welcome to do so. There is a discussion area for the Xeni article, and while it has dealt with much of the controversy surrounding this, I'm sure there is room for constructive discussion. If you believe, and can prove, the site to be what you say it is, then it should be opened for discussion. However, keep in mind that I've looked at the site and it just looks pretty childish to me. CMacMillan 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this user is mentioned on the xeni jardin page as a former employer of her. Dstanfor 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that fact has much sway. We have a user who professes to hate the Irish and Roman Catholics, and he's allowed to edit articles mentioning both. (Not with much success, mind you.) Does working for her make him a subject-matter-expert or an editor with too much bias? CMacMillan 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When he's reverting edits in the criticism section, I'd say biased. When he's updating the career section, I'd say subject matter expert. Dstanfor 14:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that I've got a lot of knowledge about Xeni's career, and I know that the site mentioned is a) insignificant in her history, b) is a stalker site, and c) very low traffic. I think the wikipedia's attempts at inclusion--which I agree with--can sometimes lead to dangerous people and their personal attacks getting more historical significance then they deserve. If I start a Wikipediasucks.com page should I be included in the Wikipedia history page? Right now anyone who starts a *sucks.com site gets instant inclusion in wikipedia. It's a real backdoor into the history process in my mind.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoncalacanis (talk • contribs)

edit to Jason Calacanis[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'd like to softy warn you that making autobiographical edits to your own page is extremely frowned upon here at Wikipedia. Your removal of the information describing you as the "father of podcasting" was both helpful and an example of the modesty that 99% of autobiographical Wikikedia edits lack. If you have further edits to your page, feel free to discuss them or lay out alternative versions of the text on the talk page and I or another editor will gladly incorporate them into the article, but please refrain from making the edits themselves (unless they are of a grammatical or spelling nature). That small buffer can prevent conflicts of interest that can comprimise the page. Glowimperial 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second... if someone puts something totally false on my bio I shouldn't take it down? That doesn't make much sense to me!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoncalacanis (talk • contribs)

It may not make sense to you because you see yourself as a reasonable person, and your edit was a simple matter of removing a sentence which falsely credited you with an accomplishment. Many edits are not as simple as that one and your action as an editor could be interpreted in a variety of ways, by a variety of editors. That is why editing a page of which you are the subject or which relates directly to your personal life or professional work is considered a conflict of interest here on Wikipedia. By not interacting directly with the page, and instead making contributions to articles that fall withing those criteria on their talk pages, a buffer is created which allows the larger population of Wikipedia editors to vet your contributions in areas where a conflict of interest could be present.

I realise that this it is not always convenient or pleasant for the subject of an article to be distanced from the article about themselves or their works. I'd like you to imagine if the edit to your article was reversed, if you were a vanity editor trying to falsely claim credit for the invention of podcasting, rather than a well-minded editor simply removing a statement which is untrue. That sort of situation, which can become quite emotional on the part of the autobiographical editor, is very common here on Wikipedia. I've had to deal with overzealous autobiographical editors on numerous occasions, it's often impossible to reason with the editor in that case. In many cases, they can't even understand that the relevant article is not "their page" and that their edits and contributions are held to the same standard as any other Wikipedia editor.

Another reason why it's unwise to edit one's own page, is that those edits often lead to the article being unfairly listed for deletion, as your page was. Your presence as an editor can comprimise the integrity of the page, as editors, unable to confirm your contributions either remove them wholesale or list the page for deletion under the criteria that it is a vanity page. The fact that all of your edits to Wikipedia under this account involve the article of which you are a subject, the article on a former employee (Xeni Jardin) and the article on Nick Denton who's company is described on the Jason Calacanis page as a competitor of yours could contribute to the impression that your sole interest in Wikipedia is to protect your interests. Having a broader portfolio of edits would assist you in any future efforts you might make to improve this or other pages about which you have personal knowledge.

I hope that explains a bit why we frown heavily upon autobiographical edits and related conflicts of interest here. I assure you that several users likely have any pages to which you might be advised to avoid editing on their watchlists and if you have contributions to make, and make them on the talk page with proper citation, they'll be implemented both quickly and well. Glowimperial 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to write that very detailed response. I have chosen to use my real name and take ownership of my words. Any edit I've made to the subjects are ones I know a *lot* about... Nick and Xeni as examples. However, I get your point... I'll try to find topics I'm not attached to and contribute there. I'll also try and find folks to edit my bio in the future if someone puts up something incorrect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoncalacanis (talk • contribs)

Next time you think a change is necessary to an article where there may be an appearance of bias if you do an edit, Mentioning the correction on the talk page and allowing another editor to make the change may be the best way to go. Dstanfor 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

silicon alley[edit]

Jason, although it's not wiki-kosher to add your name to an article, I'm glad to see you taking an interest in the Silicon Alley entry. As far I can remember, you did more to popularize the name than anyone else, by the simple act of naming your publication.

If you have the inclination, you could contribute heavily to the silicon alley entry -- if you need some ideas, check the talk page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Silicon_Alley . Please refrain from too much name-dropping though. Theinfo 05:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page "Joe's Shanghai"[edit]

A page you created, or image you uploaded, Joe's Shanghai, has been deleted in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets the one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mahalo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Mahalo. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jayden54 11:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Calacanis[edit]

Hi, Jason. I'm one of the major contributors to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. According to the guideline and custom, you are welcome to do any of the following to your own article:

Remove spam.
Revert vandalism.
Remove unsourced biographical info that might harm your reputation or be incorrect.

I see you've added some external links. These are arguably unnecessary, and I am going to take them out. If you want to add links or other material to the article, please explain what and way, on the talk page. Somebody else will review your suggestions and add the material if appropriate. This is the best practice for avoiding conflict of interest problems. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia Questions[edit]

What motivates the top 1% of wikipedians?
What do the top 1% do for a living? Are they tech folks? Media folks? Do they have full-time jobs?
How many hours a day/week do the top 1% spend on the site?
Are there any stories of top wikipedians using their wiki-cred to land jobs/start companies?
Who is the fastest wikipedian?

Excellent questions. Check this list to find some of these people. You can use this tool to rapidly understand what any particular user is doing. My feeling is that people have a wide variety of motivations and jobs. We have lots of techies, but probably more scientists and academics. For instance, the astronomy articles seem to be very complete and well written. Media people and bloggers are here too.

At Search Engine Strategies NY this month, Comedy Central's speaker revealed that they are gaining $20k per month in value from their Wikipedia presence. They recognize that there is a proper way to interact with the community in order to optimize this value. Newspapers have started investigating Wikipedia articles to see who is saying what, and more importantly, what sort of slimy things people are doing to posture themselves or their organizations before the public. For examples of scandals, see User:Durova/The dark side.

There are a couple thousand installations of Media Wiki software. The time is coming when corporations, organizations and governments will set up their own wikis bring together their communities for more efficient collaboration. Obviously those who have the most expertise will have opportunities. I believe that wikis represent the next stage of web evolution after blogs. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 01:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Bilal Abdulla[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bilal Abdulla, by Tiggerjay (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bilal Abdulla seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bilal Abdulla, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Bilal Abdulla itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operator11[edit]

A tag has been placed on Operator11, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pdelongchamp 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mahalo (linguistics)[edit]

The article Mahalo (linguistics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NAD, and while the lead-section text hints at conditions that might make an article notable (as an example of a socially recognized concept lacking a corresponding word), that source of notability, if explicitly stated would be OR and supported, in the spirit of the quack-Hopi-linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf, only by inadmissible references, apparently attributable to amateur anthropologists & amateur linguists. In the other section, the uncategorized dump job list of "Pop culture" refs is useless trivia, not even distinguishing use in a setting-specific cultural context from idiosyncratic or show-off mannerisms, and probably should be completely removed even it the lead section managed to be improved to the point of establishing notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jerzy•t 07:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]