User talk:Jimfbleak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, and welcome to my talk page.
Please add your message to the bottom of the page, and sign it using four tildes ~~~~.
I'll reply to messages posted here on your talk page. I'll reply to emails on your talk page too, so please provide a link.



Gerd Heinrich[edit]

I'm replying here rather than on the Military History Talk page, because the following are assumptions. They may help if you don't get a sourced response on that page:

d.R./Fl.: der (or Dienst [service], but that should be capialized) Reserve (Resierve?) Fliegerkorps (If he had a Luftwaffe reserve commission) (Can't remember the German spelling offhand)
Stab/Lg.Kdo. Moskau: Stab/Luftgruppe Kommando Moskau Staff of the Moscow Air Group Command
Koflug Thorn: Kommandoflug Thorn Thorn Flying (or Flight) Command Lineagegeek (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have to defer to someone with more knowledge of the Luftwaffe command structure as to whether these are the exact names for the command involved. For example, since the Germans were forced in some cases to put training units on the front lines, it occurs to me that Lg could stand for Lehrgruppe as well as Luftgruppe. (one of the reasons I didn't want to embarras myself on the MILHIST talk pages). --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I see I was right about embarrasing myself. I'll have to agree that the "g" in Lg. didn't stand for Gruppe (I thought the lower case g was being used to distinguish it from the upper case G, which is the usual abbreviation for Geschwader (traditional translation "wing"), even though the usual abbreviation for Gruppe is Gr. Luftgau Kommando Moskau translates something like Air Area Command Moscow. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Speedy deletion contested: Zachary Mainen[edit]

Hello Jimfbleak. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Zachary Mainen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In Regards to the Deletion of the page "Dean Kaelin"[edit]

Hello Jimfbleak, I appreciate your response in regards to the proposed wikipedia page, Dean Kaelin. I am Dean's Marketing Director, and as you can read in what has been proposed for his page, all of the information in there in factual and not of my or others' opinions. I understand that my having the same last name as Dean could pose a conflict of interest so I am wondering what would be the best route to take to create a page for Dean Kaelin? Would you rather my co-Marketing Director put it under his account and name? How would you like us to proceed? Thank you. User: Robbykaelin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbykaelin (talkcontribs) 05:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Richer Unsigned page[edit]

Hi JimfBleak, I have compiled the page to what I believe is satisfactory. Can you double check and let me know if there are any further issues?


Spooneycone (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (Zachary Mainen)[edit]

Hi Jimfbleak. Thank you for your feedback. This is the first wikipedia page we ever made and we were not well aware of the guidelines. We did not create it for promotional purposes. We believe the content is valid. We would like to thank you and you fellow editors for the edits. As suggested, we also removed the reference to the Ted Talk. Please let us know if any further edits are needed. Zachary Mainen 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)zacharymainen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharymainen (talkcontribs)

Scaled Agile Framework (Rob Betcher)[edit]

Hello Jim, I am trying to find what was listed as unambiguos advertising on this page. Could you please let me know, so I can correct it? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Betchplus/Scaled_agile_framework Betchplus (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Jim. Being a newbie to Wiki can be challenging. If you see anything else on the page, please let me know. I want to be sure the page offers valuable content that is aligned with Wiki standards. Betchplus (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jim, How do I remove the: User:Betchplus/ in front of the Title User:Betchplus/Scaled agile framework site? The title should just read: Scale Agile Framework. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you! Betchplus (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

SG for Invisible Rail[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Richer Unsigned[edit]

Hi Jimfbleak, I've made alterations to the page now on my sandbox, Could you check them over? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spooneycone/sandbox Many thanks, 82.21.10.57 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

deleted page/ mixtape video[edit]

Hi Jim:I shared my submission on my social network, and it was already shared by a musician in Thailand, and another share by someone I don't know personally. It seems like the process related to deletion is not consistent with other listings I researched, and I WONDER if my source links were ignored entirely by the two people who suggest I am fictional, and the collaborators credited are essays rather than factual. I will spend more time making my page more to guidelines, but before wasting more time and embarrassing the 'fictional' people who share/d my submission because it's true yet deleted/dismissed like it's not obviously valid. So, specifically, what should I do; hire someone unrelated to prove its not a fictional scheme? If the page was still live under review, I could prove its importance with the comments and edits the page will attract. Otherwise, it's a waste of history and effort and others developing mixtape videos but won't know it's not a new or fictional or spearheaded by my three years spent evolving mixtapes to include film component. If I can't define it myself, who is more qualified to speak on the topic I already proved. I want to contribute, and hope you will look at the sourced links and tell me how to get Wikipedia to recognize what the definition objectively explains clearly. If YouTube timestamps and thousands of people agree with me, why is it so hard to get Wikipedia to look at the facts I presented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLAVOR of DANGER (talkcontribs) 13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, FLAVOR of DANGER. Maybe I too can give some advice on how to proceed here. First of all, please note that Wikipedia articles are meant to be collections of what other people have already published in reliable sources. They're not meant to be a summary of your own research on some topic. So if you would like to write an article about the term 'mixtape video' you should start searching for articles written in magazines, books etc. and then use your own words to compile these results. Also, Youtube is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's definitions, and neither are random people's blogs. But by finding enough reliable sources that have written about mixtapes videos (e.g. production, cultural impact, selected notable videos, etc.) you can also show that the top, ic is notable. The problem I see here is that you wrote that there is currently no cohesive definition, so finding sources might be a bit difficult. Last but not least I need to make a remark on your first sentence here. You wrote that you previously shared this contribution on your social network and that it had been shared before somewhere else. This type of copying is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia unless the original text is released under both a Creative Commons licence that allows for commercial reuse, and the GFDL licence, or it has been released into the public domain by the very first author. So you really need to write your article from scratch instead of posting what has been copied back and forth from dubious sources on the web. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, FLAVOR of DANGER. There isn't a great deal that I can add to the previous comment. We don't accept original research, and sites like Youtube, Facebook and the like are not independent reliable sources since they can be self-edited. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

BRAC Institute of Languages[edit]

Dear Sir, I have created a page named BRAC Institute of Languages (BIL), only to introduce a leading language institute of Bangladesh. There was no purpose of advertisement. I might not included the necessary links, however, I will surely add the necessary references by today. It would be highly appreciated if you please allow me to edit the page and keep it on the wikipedia.

I would also be ever grateful to you if you please mention the requirements to post, please.

Thank you, MafizurMafizur (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Pushpinder Joshi[edit]

Hi Jim, they've recreated their sandbox with the same crap. I fear this user may have outstayed their welcome, I'll leave it to your good judgement. Bellerophon talk to me 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Opinion[edit]

Hy Jim, what do you think about this one ? Leave your opinion. Thanks A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 13:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Another opinion needed[edit]

I'm working on the article Barn owl with a view to GAN/FAC. I chose it because my public library had two excellent books on the bird, Barn Owls by Iain Taylor and The Barn Owl by Colin Shawyer. Both of these were published in 1994 so I foresee that for comprehensiveness I will have to check carefully on more recent research. Another problem is that the bird is found virtually worldwide but the literature tends to be about Britain/Europe and North America, and some of the findings may not be universal.

Apart from these general points, I specifically wanted to ask you about the referencing. I see you were the person who brought Tawny owl to FA in 2008 and you have great experience of bird FACs. At the moment, most of the sources in Barn owl are in the "Bibliography" section and I am fine with that for books, but it seems inappropriate to me for scientific papers and websites. For example, this site is referenced merely as "UF (1999)" in the "References" section. I'm inclined to rearrange things ending up with something more like we had in Common starling. Do you have any advice on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The HBW text would be most useful and I will work on reorganising the references in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sending the HBW account. Plenty to keep me going there! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As it happens, the subspecies were already listed in the article before I started on it. They were derived from HBW, but they took up a lot of room. So I tabulated them and worked out how to do a show/hide system, and now they are in the article but not cluttering up the appearance of the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

CMDportal=[edit]

Why did you delete the CMDportal article? The article was well referenced and factual, and CMDportal is a very prominent data provider within the fixed income world. There was also a previous discussion on this with Deb , where the shortcomings were death with. I hope you can provide feedback. Moreover, it is unfair for you to flag this article when there are other pages such as Dealogic and Cbonds with self-references that seem far less credible. This shows a lack of consistency and I only ask you to be fair. --Johnjohn mac (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

you also dod not address my points when I contested the speedy deletion, VERY disappointing --Johnjohn mac (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim, the list of references provided generally testified to CMDportal's notability. I accept your point though if you require these to be specifically linked to statements made in the article - so you can check what they pertain to. I will thus work on the text further and specifically link each of them. However, I need to get the article back up to work on it. Can you undo the deletion and let me know once this is done? --Johnjohn mac (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I do believe all this has been explained ad infinitum. As I think I previously advised, I would suggest you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation for future drafts of the article. Deb (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

You blocked the creator, the page Bear Me can be deleted now. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Also this page, Arturo J. García-Solá. Violating CR for over 24 hours. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hello, have a look at the bottom of the page User_talk:Irek_Minnullin, you are asked for an advise there. This is a consequence of the reverted deletion of the article about Ramil Garifullin. Unfortunately, I'm mentioned there, too, and at the moment I don't see any positive prospects for the outcome of the discussion. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hi. I have suggested that you will want to provide evidence for the allegation you made here, or else withdraw it and apologise. Will you do so please? Could you also refrain from making similar unsupported allegations in the future, especially in such an area as AN/I; such comments are especially unhelpful and I have been known to block on sight for them. I shall certainly do so if you repeat this behaviour, or if you fail to comply with my request above. Best wishes, --John (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Note that whatever I think about the MOS battlegroup, I have not abused my admin powers to further my aims. I have been known to block on sight for them. I shall certainly do so if you repeat this behaviour, or if you fail to comply with my request above. is a clear threat to use the mop unilaterally from an involved admin (I saw you remove an edit by me you didn't like from the Mos talk). Even SMcCandlish gets his day at ANI. If you want to be judge and jury, despite having previously acted partially, go ahead and block me unilaterally
  2. I am entitled to express my opinion at ANI, I admitted to a COI, and the fact that SMcCandlish's actions are disruptive is indicated by the massive support for a move ban (although I note that you were the sole dissenter)
  3. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#So long, and thanks for all the fish and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out, I can't speakfor other projects
  4. I am entitled to speculate on his motivation. SMcCandlish is an experienced debater, who has shown repeatedly that he can fight his own corner. He has not asked for an apology, so I can't see why an admin supporter should be soliciting for one on his behalf
  5. Nevertheless, I will confine myself in future to commenting on his actions and the collateral damage he has undoubtedly caused, rather than questioning his motivation. If that is not enough, so be it

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

and I see it's not just my comments you are censoring. Your admin status doesn't give you the right to redact criticism of your mates, even if you don't like it. I don't edit your comments or those of SMC or anyone else. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mmm. A lot of hand-waving and tu quoque there. I think it is #4 you are falling down on. I repeat I shall be happy to block for further breaches of WP:NPA. You are not entitled to speculate on the motivations of other editors. I do not care if you are an admin. I have no "mates" and SMcCandlish is not my "mate". Please do not repeat this. I accept your assurance for now that you will be more careful in future. --John (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow! You are impressively quick to remove criticism from your own talk page, as well as elsewhere! I've said all I intend to. It's one thing to act in a partisan way, which I do myself, it's another thing to abuse admin powers by threatening to block those who you don't agree with, while ignoring similar comments from those you support. If you think I should be blocked, start an ANI, don't just try to bully me through unilateral threats. I assume that you will delete this message too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted nothing, but like a lot of users I prefer to keep a conversation in one place rather than split it over multiple pages. Nothing further to add either. Happy editing. --John (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
and you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

As Echo will already have told you, I mentioned your name at ANI. Thanks for your comments there. (no reply needed to this) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Motto[edit]

Sorry, Jim, but I had to remove your oblique snippet on the motto from the Woolverstone Hall School article. Neither the school nor the motto are mentioned in the cited interview. Even if it's mentioned in the book, I would rate it as of zero encyclopedic relevance to Woolverstone Hall, and particularly lacking in significance for inclusion in the lead paragraph. Regards, Bjenks (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


User:Rona1964/Biblionef[edit]

Hi Jim. I am going to request that you speedily un-delete the page User:Rona1964/Biblionef for the following reasons:

  • It is not spam.
  • It was deleted so quickly from time of nomination that I did not have time to contest the deletion before the act was done. I must commend you on the speed at which you cleared this article but I must also protest at the same time.
  • It is a page that is being worked on on a user's sandbox page by that user, deleting such a page is unusual.
  • The user in question is new to editing Wikipedia and was a participant in the Western Cape Libraries edit-a-thon. I moved the page from mainspace Wikipedia to her user page so she could continue working on the page and migrate it to mainspace once it is properly written up and ready for it. This will take some time as we only meet once every Saturday and she is new to Wikipedia. I agree that it needs to be "fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" but that is part of the learning process for workshop attendees.

Thanks, --Discott (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)