User talk:Jinkinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

I am not an admin. Please do not ask me to delete, restore or protect pages as I cannot do so.

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Narutolovehinata5. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jimmy Wales, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deaths in 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Charles Vacca]], 39, American shooting range instructor, shot in the head.<ref>{http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uzi-instructor-charles-vaccas-family-death-was-tragic-accident-
  • was-tragic-accident-n191636 Uzi Instructor Charles Vacca's Family: Death Was 'Tragic Accident']</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nimrod Who?[edit]

Who exactly is Nnimrodd and what did he do to get banned from the whole wiki community? RWCasinoKid (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he did to get banned but I think that was the account of Nimrod Kamer. Jinkinson talk to me 11:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
And I thought there was only the Biblical Nimrod  ;) RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd surmise Paul Maskfire (talk · contribs) picked us because of this thread. He got blocked, though and looking at the history of this talk page, it's not hard to see why. RWCasinoKid (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Bangladesh-Korea Technical Training Centre[edit]

Hello Jinkinson. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Bangladesh-Korea Technical Training Centre, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 17:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ODataHQ deletion??[edit]

Why did you delete the ODataHQ page? I was working on it Erjjones (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Erjjones

I did not delete that page, but I did mark it for speedy deletion, after which User:Bbb23 deleted it. If you want to know why he did so, ask him on his talk page; I suspect it was because there were no reliable sources cited in the article and encourage you to only recreate the page if you can find multiple such sources. Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please help me to stop my page being deleted[edit]

Hi I do not want my wiki page (The Celestial hunt) to be deleted. Please help me and tell me fixes about the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vis says (talkcontribs) 04:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the main problem is that it needs more independent reliable sources; press releases and reviews by readers won't cut it. See WP:RS and WP:NBOOK. Jinkinson talk to me 11:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about statement by PR firms[edit]

Hello, Jinkinson. Back in June, you created a new section of the COI editing of Wikipedia article, "2014 statement by 11 PR firms"; it's a matter of interest to me because I have been the leader of this effort, as both a Wikipedian and business consultant. Someone pointed it out to me recently, taking issue with the second sentence: "The statement therefore implicitly acknowledged that these firms had not always done so, but instead had edited Wikipedia pages about their clients to remove negative information from them." I would submit that the better summary of the statement would be that PR firms had for the first time adopted a formal position supporting Wikipedia's rules and pledging to communicate this widely throughout the industry.

To be sure, the current version does reflect a conclusion drawn by the Business Insider story cited. As a group, we take issue with this: no doubt some agencies have done so, but the statement is intended to acknowledge that the practice exists, not that any signatory agency is saying that they had specifically done so. In fact, one of my partners in leading this effort responded to this effect in the comments of the BI story, however the writer has not acknowledged this.

Given this evidence that BI is less than attuned to "fact-checking and accuracy" (I'm thinking of WP:RELIABLE), not to mention Wikipedia's preference for facts over opinions (I'm thinking partly about WP:ASSERT) and the fact that BI tends to be rather sensational compared to sources like PR Week and Wall Street Journal, which covered it in a more straightforward manner, I figured I would ask to see if you would be willing to consider writing it differently using one of these sources. I haven't written an alternative, thinking you may wish to take another crack at it, but if you'd like me to suggest an alternative version, I'd be happy to do so. Thanks for your time, WWB (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the relevant sentence a bit to clarify that it might not have been the signatory firms who violated Wikipedia's policies; if you want me to change the reference too, I will do that as well. Jinkinson talk to me 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: William Vahey[edit]

Thanks for providing the date of birth. I looked but couldn't locate it online. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Swpb. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Structures for Lossless Ion Manipulations (SLIM), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Swpbtalkcontribs 18:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shooting of Charles Vacca for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting of Charles Vacca is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Charles Vacca 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 notice from the top of the article. MASEM (t) 20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ice Bucket Challenge[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Judy Wood (September 4)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

Folklore1 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Seralini[edit]

In regards to your reversion of my edit. I dug a bit deeper. Well basically your revision is more correct than mine, but not exactly correct.

There was the first peer review. Went through that and was published. Then due to outside pressure, a very rare second peer review. Went through that no problem. Then the publisher, again under pressure after the post hoc reviews, retracted the study. Then the paper was submitted to a new publisher. (4 journals volunteered to republish but ESE was chosen due to it being open access) That publisher hired 3 "reviewers" to review what had already been peer reviewed twice and passed. Those three "reviewers" basically were only looking for fraud though, since the paper had already been peer reviewed twice and they found no fraud or significant changes, they recommended that there was no need for a full formal "peer review" by a third team.

So in a way both versions of the story are correct, yet both are a bit slanted to produce bias. ESE did "review" as they do peer review all the studies they publish. But the 3 member review they did was not exactly what would be considered a formal "peer review" in the traditional sense, due to the unique circumstances. That 3rd review was more checking to see if the first two reviews was sufficient or if Seralini had fudged any raw data or any changes like that in the new version submitted for republishing. They found that the original peer reviews were competent, and no need to go through the full formal process again.

I have no axe to grind here though. Since technically the third review was not exactly a "peer review" in the traditional meaning, the version you produced is closer to the truth. So I am going to leave that alone. The one thing the article needs though is an update that includes this information. Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13 Which was published as commentary at the same time as the republishing. I'll let you add that though. I don't want to start an edit war on an obviously controversial page.Redddbaron (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question[edit]

Thanks for adding a category to that Philosophia (journal) stub. I only found it by accident when I started working on an article for philoSOPHIA. Do you know much about how to handle problems with lowercase title publications? Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is covered here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lowercase_first_letter Jinkinson talk to me 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried that, but it didn't work. Still, thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sockpuppet investigations. Since you had some involvement with the Sockpuppet investigations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I do not want Charge(game) to be deleted.I shall improve my article if that is what has to be done.I erased the two sources that is unacceptable.Please help me to stop this page being deleted.

OK, so what you need to do is find independent, reliable sources that discuss the game in depth and add them to the article. If you can find such sources and add a substantial number of them, I (or maybe someone else) will remove the prod tag. Jinkinson talk to me 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Article for deletion[edit]

I do not want this article to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadeem_Bhabha . I would like to improve it and trying to improve it. Please help me to improve the article by suggesting what to remove from the previous information.

thanks Nadeembahoo (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to find independent reliable sources that discuss Nadeem Bhabha in detail. Also, if you are Nadeem Bhabha you probably shouldn't edit the page yourself, so instead, add links to these sources on the article's talk page and propose they be added to the article. Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Disappearance of Hannah Graham for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Hannah Graham is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Hannah Graham 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 notice from the top of the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)