User talk:Njd-de

Evelyne Binsack ‎

Hi, I make all this changes in cooperation with Mrs, Binsack here. We will add citation soon. It seems you have no so much insight into the life of Mrs Binsack as she has. So please hold back your deleting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARE505 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

MARE505, it doesn't really matter here who has more insight into her life, as Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Wikipedia is a place where already reported information is summarized in articles. Thus it doesn't work the way that you write something, and then, later on, find some citations for it. Please include the citations right into the article while you're writing it.

Most importantly though, please note that you appear to have an external relationship with Evelyne Binsack. This might unduly influence you and will be seen as a potential conflict of interest. NJD-DE (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I appreciate it and filled in the citations as mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARE505 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Well spotted - that content had remained in the article for far longer than it should have, some editors had even disambiguated links in it (!). A good thing you took the time to read it, and respond appropriately. Cheers, and Happy New Year! GirthSummit (blether) 16:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Everspark

Hello there, I don't know if I'm using the "talk" feature right, but this is in regards to EverSpark Interactive. And in response to your comment. "I completely understand that. That's why I removed everything promotional and left the update to the actual company like the update in ownership/leadership and our recent recognition by a third party. I took out all the "What we offer" stuff. " Skarwisch (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Skarwisch, I have seen your edit summary which included a statement about having removed promotional text. However, your text still was overly promotional and not encyclopedic language. The details about Shazhad's and Watson's work in the company are not really of encyclopedic relevance for example. Also external links are not supposed to be part of the main article. Instead one should make use of reliable sources and citations, so that others can verify it. NJD-DE (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to adjust it. Please be patient. Skarwisch (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Skarwisch, one question: from your username and a google search it seems as if you are employed by Everspark. Is that correct ? NJD-DE (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, how is that? Better? And should I not include the link at all? I'll take it out if need. Yes, I do work for EverSpark, I was asked to update the Wiki page as it was very outdated. Perhaps my promotional tone is bred in me, but I can adjust to fit Wikipedia's rules. Thank you! Skarwisch (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to not include the link.

I totally get it that you want your employer to shine in it's best light, it's just that Wikipedia community deems you to be under a conflict of interest. There are a few things to be aware of in that situation. Trying to fit/comply with the rules is already a good start. I will post a message on your talk page with a short list of relevant guidelines and policies. NJD-DE (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Frederick T Attenborough

Hi, really confused by the comment on Frederick T Attenborough page. One of the issues with the page was that it relied too much on primarcy sources. I've added a secondary source and you're saying it's inappropriate. Could you explain? I'm new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policyoftruth97 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Policyoftruth97, you didn't add a reference by citing a source but instead added the website as an external link. External links in articles are considered inappropriate.

Regarding the point of the article relying too much on primary sources: That doesn't mean you should just add any other source. Wikipedia articles should be referenced with reliable sources. Have a look in WP:RS to know more about what that means. A blog such as lockdown sceptics wouldn't be considered as reliable source for example. NJD-DE (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Could you just clarify what a blog such as lockdown sceptics wouldn't be considered as reliable? Is it the content of the site, or what, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policyoftruth97 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There are certain factors like editorial oversight that are relevant. That's why blogs not published by newspapers are usually not considered reliable. There are certain exceptions where you can use them as a source on themselves, however, that wouldn't really fix the primary sources issue.. If you wanna learn more about that then have a look at the guideline about reliable sources and the policy on verifiability. NJD-DE (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Kittrell College

Dr. Stephanie Freeman: I had not addressed what you wrote to me, but I am going to address it now. A media firm wrote information on me (unpaid) because I am very well known for what I do. They wrote the information in a lively manner--a manner that fits my personality. I posted it because I thought this forum was open--as long as the information was credible. I don't need to advertise myself. I am already advertised, so to speak. I will have the firm revise the information and put it in the Wikipedia format with links. From there, I would like to know who gave you the right to remove something from a public platform. Also, why are the person to whom I have to justify what I am doing? I see Wikipedia's guidelines and suggestions (some strong suggestions), but I do not see where people have the right to remove credible information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sfreeman44, Let me begin by addressing the last point you mentioned because the answer to it might lighten things on Wikipedia generally.

I am not the authority deciding on how a Wikipedia article should be written. I am far from being such an authority. Thus, you don’t have to justify what you are doing to me personally. However, Wikipedia is a community, a community run by volunteers. Everyone here is free to read and to contribute. Not only free to do so, but invited to do so. This invitation comes with a set of policies and content guidelines though. These have been formed over the years by consensus of the community.

To make it clear: Wikipedia is not a platform where you can just do what you want to do. So coming back to your question who gave you the right to remove something from a public platform: it is the community giving everyone this right. If something is not according to policy or seems like it would fail to reach consensus, everyone here can and should address it.

In this editing cycle - often known as "be bold, revert, discuss" - the credibility of information as you mentioned is indeed important. However, it's a key policy here that editors need to ensure that information is verifiable. This can be achieved by quoting reliable sources. It is not enough to edit based on "It is this way because I am saying it". A conflict of interest in the community's view doesn't stop when someone feels like he is already advertised and has no need for it as you'd say. It is the understanding here that someone in a conflict of interest is unduly influenced and will face difficulties adhering to a neutral point of view.

The way Wikipedia works might not be how you expected it to be. You might disagree with some of the policies, or even find them ridiculous. I can't change that for you. What I am doing though, is to encourage you to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works, ask questions and propose your edits on the article talk page. - NJD-DE (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The community of which you speak is diverse. That means some members of the community have different styles and ways of documenting and relaying history and information. Some cultures are more oral than others. One type of community seems to be trying to rule what was intended to be an open format. Yes, information needs to be verifiable. However, the way in which the information is verified and handled is not being representative of a "community." Your information was associated with the removal of my information, which is why you and not the "community" was addressed. This aggressive posturing and acting on behalf of a "community" without reguard or respect for how some communities disseminate information is what I am addressing. It is arrogant at best and rude at worst to assume that the adopted "format" on an open platform should conform to what a some deem "appropriate." Wikipedia has suggestions and strong recommendations, but the validity of information is foremost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Sfreeman44, I am too tired now to have a discussion on whether Wikipedia is keeping up with what it was intended for and whether it serves all communities well. The policy is that information needs to be verifiable and it's gonna stay like that until you start discussing the policy on relevant talk page.

No one here intends to be arrogant, aggressive to you or silence you. But even an open platform has it limits and ruleset as I mentioned before. You will find it very hard here when not accepting that. NJD-DE (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence. I, of course, do not think that Wikipedia is a place where people can do whatever they want. It is also not a place that was intended to be some "police state." You are tired. So am I. I am tired of this dictatorial faux ownership of this platform. Yes, the platform is diverse, but the people with whom I am dealing do not seem to be. Guidelines are just that--guidelines. Had we had a conversation before my information was removed, we would not be here. Respect is key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bear Republic Brewing Co.

Hello, I am sorry if the content i added to the bear's page was not properly cited or violates a COI. I am new to adding content and what is and isn't acceptable, i am a little confused about what can and cannot be added. I was trying to use the same format i have seen on other breweries pages. Can i get a more specific example of what i should not have added or been doing so that i can not repeat the mistake. I would also like clarification on what was considered promotional material so that i can avoid the misunderstanding as i am new to this. Blkmerlin13 Blkmerlin13 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Blkmerlin13, thanks for reaching out to me and welcome on Wikipedia.

The edits on Bear Republic Brewing Company seemed promotional due to the inclusion of company quotes such as "To make beer, you need water, and lots of it. Living in a drought prone area has made us conscious of water scarcity". Also most of the text was not sourced, or not using reliable sources. Furthermore, large parts seemed to be copy-pasted from the company website which is a copyright violation.

Due to the nature of your edits, and after a quick google search of your username, it appears that you have a close connection to the subject of the article. Editors with such a conflict of interest are asked to disclose this and are asked to avoid editing the articles themselves. In such case it is better that one suggests the text additions or changes with sources on the article talk page with the request edit template. NJD-DE (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications and moving forward i will use the talk page for suggested edits with the appropriate COI disclaimer and sources. Again thank you for helping. Blkmerlin13 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome anytime. In case you have more questions feel free to reach out to me. Alternatively, you can also visit the teahouse where experienced editors will help you with finding your way around on Wikipedia. NJD-DE (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hazards Forum

Hi, I note that you consider I have a conflict of interest. If I'm unable to update the article which is out of date and incomplete, and no-one else is doing it, then how does it get updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFChair (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi HFChair, I recommend having a look at the conflict of interest guide. I know it's nothing you read in 2 mins but it gives a very good and practical overview of what to do, and what not to do (e.g. ways of disclosing your COI, how to request edits on the article talk page, not using promotional language/mission statements, using reliable sources ..).

I won't promise that someone will have a look at your edit requests on the same day, as there are quite a few of them on various articles. However, fairly soon editors will usually see and act on such edit requests then. NJD-DE (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

List of White House security breaches

Geol19 my information on white house security breaches was correct and did happen today, so put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geol19 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Geol19, you didn't provide any reliable source backing up that there has been indeed security breaches in the White House. The article you referenced referred to the incident happening in the Capitol. Thus I had reverted your edit. Please only include events in the article if you cite reliable sources that actually match the event. NJD-DE (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well i am new to wiki and do not know how to do such things, but since it is all over the news i would have thought it would be acceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geol19 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that reports on it, then you can include it most times. However, at least I fail to find any reporting on such an event having happened/happening in the White House. What I find all over media is people being in the Capitol .. NJD-DE (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Message from Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas)

Stop editing people's information unnecessarily because you are removing information which was legally published by Wikipedia.Take time studying the information of a person you want to edit because if you upload fake information your account may be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas) (talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas), I am not sure what you are referring to exactly. I can not have removed information that was published by Wikipedia as Wikipedia doesn't publish articles. It's users working on articles here. When accusing me of misbehavior please remember WP:AOBF before threatening me with a ban. Thanks. NJD-DE (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Apple Watch edit

I’m sorry that was my mistake. Thanks for editing it Tididkdk (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tididkdk, no worries. Just be careful when editing and make use of preview-function/review changes as well as your sandbox. Otherwise, your editing might come across as being disruptive. In case you have any questions feel free to ask me or head over to the teahouse where you can ask your questions. NJD-DE (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

KUJU ENTERTAINMENT RELIABLE SOURCE

Hi

My name is Asad Habib. I am the reliable source. An ex employee hired as Head of Quality from 2002 and 2011 with 9 years service. Every single item added wa actual fact with no exhagerration, lies or spin. Every single Kuju employee (300)would verify that as the truth.

Yours sincerely Asad Habib AsadHabibUnitedKingdom (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AsadHabibUnitedKingdom, I was not doubting the factuality but I am sorry to tell you that your own testimony is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Things have to be reported on by reliable sources in order to be able to include them in Wikipedia articles. If you wanna have a look at what that means have a look at this link WP:RS, as well as this one to understand why verifiability is so important here. NJD-DE (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I will look at unlined citations to add them then the case is closed. AsadHabibUnitedKingdom (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Frank Nwachukwu Ndili

Hi, I noticed that you deleted changes I made to Professor Ndili's page. I made all those changes with direct communication with prof Frank Ndili and with his full permission. I am his personal biographer and you should not have deleted my changes. we will add references soon. You do not have insight into his life and cannot presume to delete the truth and allow falsehoods to be published. Please restore the changes immediately. That wa a lot of work that you erased without verifying from who was making the changes or asking for permission. Thank you.

Editor 20022 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Editor 20022, I am sorry to tell you but this is not the way Wikipedia works. Only verifiable, with reliable sources referenced information should be added to articles. Even though the article is about a person doesn't mean that the person owns this article (WP:OWN). I didn't have to ask for any permission and I will not restore unsourced information.

Before continuing to edit please read the policies WP:COI and WP:PAID, and follow the appropriate steps to disclose the conflict of interest and paid editing. NJD-DE (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard Barnett

You were too quick reverting my edits. I was still in the process of fixing it. Rob Napier (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rob Napier, alright. But I wonder how. Are you intending to create an article on him? Previous additions of his name to the list were removed by an admin and even revdel'd. NJD-DE (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Eric Bieniemy

A few days ago user IceFrappe made massive unilateral edits to the page concerning a lot of controversies/incidents like speeding tickets and driving violations from 20 and 30 years ago. I have been in a dispute with them about it, and have been reverting the page to what it was before they made their massive unilateral edits. Log47933 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Log47933, still not a reason to not provide an edit summary. Also if you already are in a content dispute, then let the article rest first and discuss it. NJD-DE (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In my earlier edits I explained my rationale for the changes, but I understand your point, I should do that every edit. Discussion has been difficult since the user is trying multiple methods to block/ban me while bypassing the BRD cycle and making a lot of personal attacks. Log47933 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)