User talk:Renamed user ascdascdascasd

Case accepted

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Jacob, please read all of this before you do anything.

Would you please go to the evidence page of the Arbcom case, which is here, and in your own section, please say:

• When you first started paying Salvidrim! ?
• Whether or not you paid Salivdrim! to review Soetermans' AfC submission for the Datari Turner article, and also whether you paid Salvidrim to review Soetermans' Soeterman to review Salvidrim's submissions for the Weinstein and Izad articles?
• If you were aware that Soetermans was going to review the Weinstein and Izad articles, before it happened, and encouraged that in any way?

Please note that I am asking - you are free to not do this. Completely free to not do this.

I am also a little unclear as to whether some people might say that you should not do this (even if you are willing). I am pinging User:Euryalus to get his take on whether is is OK for you to do this, if you want to. (The concern is that this may be considered private information of Salvidrim! and Soetermans, and it would not be appropriate for you to say it on Wikipedia, but rather only privately to Arbcom. Euryalus can clarify if it is OK for you to provide this information publicly.)

Please do not write anything in response to my request until Euryalus weighs in.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC) (fixed Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC))

Your second bullet point seems to be inverted Jytdog -- Soetermans reviewed WolvesS's drafts of Dan Weinstein and Reza Izad, which I had sent to AfC (and yes, against the expectation of payment as stated in my evidence section, although I'll let Jacob answer that for himself as well). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(FWIW the e-mail evidence submitted to ArbCom of my exchanges with Jacob also answer all your questions above; unless Jacob objects I'm not opposed to also sending you a copy for review but with since ArbCom is the one arbitrating I'm not sure how warranted you that think would be) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The committee will come by with its own questions in a little while. In the interim, as Jytdog says, do please feel free to submit evidence either on the case page or (if it involves anyone's personal info) by email to the committee. As a personal view, Jytdog's questions seem reasonable enough but up to you how or if you reply. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Euryalus, thanks for your reply. JacobMW you are free to post answers to those questions, or anything else relevant to the case, if you want. I asked you to post publicly, as per WP:APPARENTCOI it is bsst for the community if the questions are resolved publicly. But you are free to do as you wish. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Salvidim, you are the person who submitted the article for AfC. This was your stated strategy. Triple shame on you. But thanks for the dif, which I will present as evidence. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC) (stricken Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)}}

Jytdog your bullet point says whether you paid Salvidrim to review Soetermans' submissions for the Weinstein and Izad articles, I'm just pointing out you seem to have inverted usernames here. You also clearly meant RfA, not AfC here. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes it was incorrect. I was just fixing it when we edit conflicted. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Just getting around to this. Totally fine providing any evidence if need be. Seems like you guys have it taken care of but I'll be on standby. JacobMW (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. This isn't like court in the real world, where you will be subpoenaed and you get in some kind of trouble if you don't participate. So there is no "need" from your end. From the community's side, there is also no "need". I asked you to give input, because it would be helpful to the community to have it. You are free to not do it, of course. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

@Jytdog: quick question for you... what would be the best notability guideline to follow for business executives? I'm familiar with WP:ANYBIO but just wondering if there's anything more specific if they're a CEO, etc. Thanks! JacobMW (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, nope i don't believe we do. Just beware of the temptation of padding out the article with stuff the company did. The bio needs to be about the person and based on sources that discuss the person. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Great feedback! Thanks, Jytdog. JacobMW (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors proposed decision

Hi JacobPace, in the open Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Datari Turner (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Datari Turner and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Datari Turner, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:JacobMW by Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC))

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

This arbitration case, for which you were named as a party, has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

Reply

Hello. Thanks for the offer for payment, but I'm going to have to decline. I'm only able to edit Wiki in my free time and I really only edit things I'm passionate or knowledgeable about. I'm rather content with volunteering for it. Best wishes to you. Soulbust (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Soulbust! Appreciate the honest and swift reply. JacobPace (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Note

About your note here where you pinged me.

i have been kind of half-following what has been going on. Yes overall, the WP community doesn't like paid editing much, but every one loves high quality content. But the content you have been proposing is pretty much typical PR/"announcements" type stuff that a company would make via social media or press releases - "hey we are going on tour of Japan!" "hey we released a book!" and a lot of the sources are churnalism or the like. I know there is lots of content like that everywhere in WP. That is unfortunate on a bunch of levels. Probably the most unfortunate, is that people use it as a model of what is OK.

If what you were proposing was high quality content, aimed at teaching people stuff with neutral, well-sourced description (for example, content that taught people how Arne and Carlos actually developed their business... what smart choices did they make and in what ways did they get lucky... what is core to their brand and how did they establish that... like a business school case study) you would probably be making better headway. But as it is, with marginal content proposed by a paid editor, it is hard to get over the hump.

There is the double hurdle of why you are here, and the content itself. Disclosed paid editors actually have to be better than your average editor, both in terms of self-control of their behavior and in terms of the content they propose. It is a hard row to hoe.

You seem to have done a great job with remaining cool and following the COI/PAID policies and guidelines. I appreciate that, very much. I am sorry things are going badly with the content... Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Jytdog. All good. Like I said, at this point there's only a handful of projects I'm trying to wrap up and then I'm planning on stepping out for a bit. If you have any tips, let me know, otherwise I'll just continue to make edit requests and likely face even more uphill battles... lol :/ JacobPace (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in Jacob, but I know you've read WP:COI, and your first experience with Wikipedia was getting two veteran editors into major hot water over paid edits... so are you surprised that you've faced an uphill battle? I honestly don't mean that as a jibe – it's just always puzzled me that so many paid/COI editors persist after learning that the community strongly discourages it, and I'd sincerely be interested in any insights you had. Is there anything we can do to make it clearer that such activities are not welcome? – Joe (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe, responding to your first sentence only, that is not fair based on what I understand happened. As I understand it Jacob relied on advice from those two editors, who gave him advice that was not good, and on top of that got themselves in hot water through the choices they made and the things they did. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: like I said, at this point, I'm ultimately not trying to persist with my ways. The thing is, though, I already have agreements in place to offer these services to the companies I've been working on and would just like to wrap them up at this point. In regards to your second question, Wikipedia's policies seem to accept it but in the past few months I've come to directly learn that it's not welcomed. JacobPace (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jacob, and fair point Jytdog. My concern is that so many paid editors seem to skip past the "strongly discouraged" etc. in WP:COI and focus on the "rules". Jacob's impression that our policies accept paid editing would seem to reinforce that. I wonder if anything can be done to make the message clearer. – Joe (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Datari Turner

Draft:Datari Turner, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Datari Turner and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Datari Turner during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SeraphWiki (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

NF

Hi Jacob. I see you've been doing well. I was wondering if you could confirm something about NF - if you don't know this for certain, you need not ask anyone about it, but it's for the sake of the article. In his biography article, his mother is written to have died from an overdose; however, the reference given claims it was a suicide. Do you see the problem? I know it's a sensitive topic, but consistency is important. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: Hope you've been well too. Sure, I can check in with the label about this. However, I know the first thing they are going to ask me is what the update is on his genre category. Is this something you can help with simultaneously or give a strategy for? JacobPace (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a circumstance we can remove it. I have downplayed it by de-prioritizing the infobox genre and putting standard hip-hop in front of it, and have also added a quote from himself describing his musical aim. If he continues at the pace he is going and his next release is in a similar direction to his Christian departure, eventually we can note it was formerly part of his work, but that's the furthest we can go. You can't deny he has history with the genre, although he might not be part of it now. You get what I'm saying? An examplle would be the infobox of Deftones, where their former nu metal history is noted as "early)". dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor makes sense, thanks! Let me touch base with the label about the above. JacobPace (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: in regards to your question about NF's mother, I am not 100% positive myself so I asked the label and here's what they had to say about the matter: As for the question, I’ve never heard it was suicide… could have been, but we just know that it was an overdose and that’s really it. JacobPace (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall replace the reference accordingly. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reza Izad (business executive) (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reza Izad (business executive) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reza Izad (business executive), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JacobMW! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dan Weinstein (January 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Drover's Wife was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dan Weinstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dan Weinstein, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Datari Turner has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Datari Turner. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Dial911. I'll check it now! JacobPace (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Datari Turner has been accepted

Datari Turner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dial911 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Datari Turner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Datari Turner 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/Datari Turner (3rd nomination) 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Promotional Edit Explanation

Lets presume for a moment that Mr. Dolotta is a big name notable person. You being a smart person, I decide to go out and hire you to create a stub article for me. I could see it being completely non-promotional if the entire article consisted of "Dolotta is a resident of Wisconsin. He has a bachelor of science degree in accounting." (all info one can gleam from my userboxes) It would be promotional if the article stated that I am the best accountant in the world and the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sure, I know full well that the statement is true (smile) but Wikipedia is not the place for a person to put their promotional material. So, the point is that it is generally harder for a paid editor to avoid these issues and that is why people look at paid edits with a fine tooth comb to help alleviate the potential for these kind of issues. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dolotta: This totally makes sense. I get that paid pieces are under more scrutiny but in the specific instance of Datari's article, I'm not saying he's the best film producer, etc. I understand the argument that maybe he is not notable. JacobPace (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Studio71

I just reviewed the discussion at Talk:Studio71.

Some notes:

• fwiw i suggest that when people ask you to clarify your status as a paid editor, you do that right away. PeterTheFourth had to re-ask, and that is something that you should not allow to happen, as it builds up more tension and bad feeling toward you. (This is that thing I told you about - people are going to be somewhat mean to you, and if you want to be successful you need to keep yourself together and be responsive, even when others are being somewhat harsh or unpleasant)
• My sense is that people there are growing exasperated, and your arguments are not making headway with the people there. Two notes about that:

1. Please always be aware of WP:PAYTALK - being unfailingly polite is great, but continuing when it is clear that you are making no headway is not. (Please see this AN thread, where the community banned a paid editor who was very polite but would not take "no" for an answer). I don't think you are quite there yet but you are getting there, in my view)
2. in general for everybody in WP, WP's dispute resolution processes (which are described in that page, as well as in pages about specific issues) were built to help people avoid getting caught in the trap that you all are in there. It never should come down to a few people beating their heads against each other. At some point the person not getting consensus should either a) give up or b) use a DR process to get wider input. It is important to understand the right DR process to use, and to do that, you have to understand what you are trying to accomplish.

• What you are trying to accomplish, is one of two things - either contesting a WP:MERGE, or if you are accepting the merge as a done deal, doing a WP:SPLIT of content that has been merged.

1. In my view trying to contest the MERGE is not going to fly and will only generate a lot of bad feeling for you. But if you want to go down that road, you could say at the Studio71 talk page that this was a "controversial merge" per Wikipedia:Merging#Controversial_mergers and it should have been done through a formal Wikipedia:Proposed mergers process. You would say that, and then ask the folks at Talk:Studio71 to undo the merge, and instead do the proposed merge, and say that you will agree to follow community consensus of that process. (the latter is very important - folks have to hear you say that you are willing to stop at some point)
2. The alternative is to accept what has happened, in which case what you want to do is a WP:SPLIT of the content out of the ProSiebenSat.1 Media page. If you read WP:SPLIT, you will see that it says that we only do a split if content about a subtopic has become too big and unwieldy in the parent article. (for example Diet and cancer is a split from Cancer and there is a summary section left at Cancer#Diet_and_exercise. Likewise Side effects of penicillin was split from Penicillin and there is a summary section at Penicillin#Side_effects)

1. Right now, the content about Studio71 is not too big in the ProSiebenSat.1 Media page. So for anybody evaluating the issue from an objective standpoint, they would not support a split at this time.
2. therefore, the correct thing to do is to shift your effort to Talk:ProSiebenSat.1 Media, and see if you can get folks to agree to add content there. Only if that content becomes too big, can you start to make a legitimate argument for splitting.

More generally, WP:CLUE is the most important little essay in WP - it talks about "knowing what works, what doesn't". There is a big pile of bad feeling around this topic in particular, and that pile of "bad will" is going to be difficult-to-impossible for you to get what you want and you are likely to only damage your reputation here if you keep trying.

I see no real chance in the near future for Studio71 to have its own article in WP. That may change in a year or two.

Those are some thoughts for you. You will of course do as you see fit. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Appreciate you messaging me here with these tips. Yes, moving forward I will declare my paid status much quicker when asked. That was just a small question I accidentally overlooked. As I'm sure you understand, my role here in the WP space is extremely difficult. I totally understand the idea behind WP:PAYTALK, but sometimes my propositions are quickly shut down due to an extremely bias opinion of my paid editing and don't feel it's given a fair shot. I'm fine taking no for an answer, but you do see the balance here right? Between listening to the community on feedback and being somewhat persistent for what my client wants done (which is generally within reason).

In regards to Studio71, how would seeking community consensus be bad for me? Don't you think that should be the natural first step before a WP:SPLIT? What kind of information is needed to show that Studio71 deserves its own article as its had for years? Thank you for the insight. JacobPace (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeking wider input is never a bad thing. In my view asking the other folks you are talking with to undo the merge is a big ask and you would have to frame the "you maybe didn't really do that correctly" aspect of that approach somewhat gingerly. In theory it never hurts to ask anything if you are really asking and are ready for "no" but the bigger the ask, the bigger the risk of backlash. That's all. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Understood, thanks. In your opinion, do you think Studio71 deserves its own article? And I assume the only criteria to be measured against is WP:CORP? Thanks for helping me understand this. JacobPace (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

When you work in WP that means dealing with the reality of the editing community that makes decisions. People all have their perspectives on what is correct under the policies and guidelines, but what matters is what perspective most people find persuasive. That is how decisions get made here. This is what CLUE tries to communicate. I gave you my perspective on whether I think the community would accept a stand alone article on Studio71 above. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Makes sense. There seems to be an incredibly unfair bias against paid editors in my experience - but makes sense. Last question: what would be your #1 tip of advice for me to gain respect from community members? JacobPace (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Jytdog, but will offer some comments. Right now you are very close to wearing out your welcome. That's not just my opinion; you can sense the exasperation [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Datari_Turner_(3rd_nomination) here], where there even were calls to impose sanctions on you. The vibe you're giving is that you have no use for Wikipedia other than as a way to make a buck, justifying re-creation of the article as an effort to keep the client happy.

You come from the business world, where pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing to get your way is normal and expected. But one of the first things that successful Wikipedia editors learn is that they aren't always going to get their way. I have to deal with that constantly in my editing, and believe me it can be frustrating. I expect Jytdog feels the same way. If you can internalize that lesson you could have a long career in Wikipedia. If you cannot, your stay here is likely to be short, whether voluntarily or otherwise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)