User talk:Jimfbleak

Please add your message to the bottom of this page, give it a heading and sign it using four tildes ~~~~.

Delete my article of Arpan Tanna

Hi Jimfbleak,

Before few minutes I created a article named Arpan_tanna, but it deleted by you. Please know me about why you deleted that? It was about my personal Info. My email address : arpan.ec24@gmail.com

Thanks!

Delete my article

Hi,

I got message from you, I deleted your article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines.

Please provide me information how to make independent verifiable my article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpan tanna (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milkwood its Milkstone

well jim im sorry if i am wasting your time, but do you think that was necessary to intimidate either that or my temper is making my judgement hazy since its bad enough to have my own article on death's door along with getting kicked in the groin as if i was somekind of stupid child who smokes weed for a living, i take this topic seriously.--Indienews (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky

Jim, hope you're well. We posted on FB and twitter about George's article and quite a few people contributed to the page. Looks like they found articles online that even I missed.

Overall, are you happy with the extent of sources? Also, are we on our way to being safe of the dreaded COI label?

As always, very grateful for your guidance and advice.

Ngoesseringer (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City of Faith Church

All comments noted. Thanks. Amending accordingly. --Akpantue (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Prophetz Page

Whatever your reasons were for deleting my page, fine but your remark, accusation lacks reliable evidence.

Unreliable insulting accusation remark by User:Jimfbleak who's statement " votes by one editor and his sockpuppets " is insulting. Please provide Reliable Source or evidence of his "sockpuppets" relations to the editor. As this is an direct implication of malicious use of the platform by the editor. The statement in itself is weak and considered a personal attack without Proof (truth) regardless of your position or rank in Wikipedia a statement like this is false without proof. Please back up your statement by demonstrating the relation between editor and the person you so namely call sockpuppets by means of IP addresses or other findings as this statement in itself is also considered an insult to the editor. Please provide sources for your statement.

Candy H (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a misunderstanding I think. The sockpuppet had no connection to User:John shaftman as far as I'm aware. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not sure why he is now signing as Candy H? Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say he, actually I'm a she. You do realize that Wikipedia allows you to use nicknames? If I was not permitted to change my nick name freely then why is it allowed? You statement in itself is still seeking justification to label me something which I'm not. Candy H (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the page but did not close the AFD discussion. Just a reminder to do so. --Jayron32 02:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Nauru Reed Warbler

Sorry, I've been really busy- I had some space for it a few days ago, and then someone nominated one of my articles for deletion! I'll certainly find some time in the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Don Buden; though he didn't have any photographs, he's given me the contact details of some people who may, and he's also sent me another article on the species (citation below) which I will be taking a look through. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buden, D. W.; Franhert, S. (2010). "Birds collected by Otto Finsch in the Republic of Nauru, with notes on the history and current locations of the syntypes and other specimens of the Nauru Reed-Warbler, Acrocephalus rehsei (Finsch, 1883)". Journal of Afrotropical Zoology (Special Issue): 31–35.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I'm going to hold off on nominating for at least a few days- I've got someone who's promised me some photos of the species. That seems to be the last missing element! J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Powerful Women's Vitamins

I am not sure why you deleted this page. I made corrections and contested it as to why it does provide notable information to users. Please return my page. Thanks Arielnorton (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Please let me know what I need to do to fix this page and have it returned to WP. Arielnorton (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: George Ortiz

Hi I am not sure why you deleted the page I created and was planning on working on further. Could you please re-establish the page and let me finish it? Thanks!Gerelage (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Williams2013

My image is no copyright... it's my own work. The reason it doesn't have "Metadata" is because I don't upload raw images. I edit the colours, lighting, etc... on the program "Windows Live Photo Gallery" then use them. --Wudumindif (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upside Down Umbrella Roundabout.jpg

I was wondering was it a license or permission issue with File:Upside Down Umbrella Roundabout.jpg? I can't view the deleted file and the information with it. If it's the issue of the "Upside down umbrellas", COM:FOP would cover that. Bidgee (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky

Jim, the article is being considered by deletion. I am so disappointed. Could you do anything to stop the process? These administrators are accusing 'thin air' and 'sock' and are utterly disrespectful. Please please help stop the deletion.

Ngoesseringer (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky

Jim, this is so dispiriting. I really am dismayed by this all... The admin redpenofdoom has removed all sorts of important things, and now his page is down and I cannot even write this person! It seems like these people who are doing this must know each other, like it a concerted effort against the article. Could you please look into this matter? Do you have any further advice? I am really truly at a loss...

Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky

I have fixed the numerous things the other admin has complained about, could you please remove the things he has placed on the top of my page? All sources are completely valid and I have removed the article that I authored.

Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky

Jim, the redpenofdoom is harassing me and being terrible about things. I needed to restore the old page so that I could carefully go through it again and take out anything that isn't up to par. Could you please block this person for at least one day so that I could go through and fix the page? With all the deleting he's done he has caused me stress and upset. It is easier to correct if I can see how things were.

Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky

Could you please remove these?:

They are no longer applicable, every source is healthy and the whole page has been gutted anyway.

Jim, please take a look at what the redden editor is doing to the article, please notice the comments and the nature of them. This is a spiteful person and I would like to have something, anything don about it.

Ngoesseringer (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ngoesseringer (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky

Jim, after all that has happened, I'm wondering if it makes sense to go any further? In you your opinion should we put the article back in my sandbox at this point?

Ngoesseringer (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Milkwood incident

Sorry about that Jim, i lost my mind there when you notice work something of yours is deleted then you wonder to yourself what you did wrong ( its applying about me not you) then once you realize who deleted your work, you tend to lose it or question yourself instead i blew up like a fire cracker when you made your second earliest reply to me. sorry it had to go like that but you can understand me somewhat by taking a peek at my user profile if you want, hope that did some good :/ --Indienews (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy or Rude?

I wasn't sure whether you were Lazy or Rude, I now see it was the latter. Tommy Pinball (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim Bleak, I hope all is well. I am not really sure how to explain my problem but here goes:

I am Ty Walsh Trez, I created an account for myself and began to write about me in a sort of user section. The next day, it was deleted by you. I guess the explanation was that I didn't cite it? I need to find another website that has my name someplace in order to prove I'm me? Not sure about what is needed to prove I'm me - especially since I am the one that created the account. Also, we are told not to take it personally or be offended - but what if I deleted something that you spent a great deal of time doing? Sorry but that isn't right. Wikipedia needs to give us a 24 hour warning or SOMETHING before you delete it - unless it is porno or something. It looks like you spent most of the day deleting lots of things without really giving it much thought. I don't think such practice will last much longer... because making people angry is never good business practice. Just saying.
I wrote a book called PEARJUICE: A SPACE ADVENTURE WITH MARILYN MONROE

That is a fact and you can go to Amazon.com right now and buy it. It would seem to me that you would want all of the available 'MARILYN MONROE LITERATURE' to be found in Wikipedia under Marilyn Monroe Literature - not just some of it. But again, this is confusing and I'm not sure that you are deleting that part of it or just my name and user section - which really is strange to say the least.

On your talk page, I saw no obvious place to write to you - maybe I'm an obsolete caveman. I am writing to you but not sure if you'll get it in the way I am attempting to write to you.

Well, I guess I'll get a 9-year-old to help me figure this out! Thanks for anything you can tell me that will help. -Ty

George Komsky

Jim, of course I understand and I am truly grateful for all you have done. However there is a matter I want to discuss with you: Before all this, George had a situation where a former partner of his started a page using his name without permission. He personally contacted wikipedia and filed a complaint. The article was factually inaccurate and was truly built on hot air. However, curiously it was not rigorously analyzed or dissected like the current article is being. In fact shockingly so... 3 months after the complaint the article was deleted (it was titled Becca Stockton and George Komsky). Could it be that the person behind that article started this rather coordinated effort to belligerently attack the page? It seems suspicious how fast all of this is happening;'frankly it's even somewhat malicious. You read the commentary.... This person had told George that she had made contact with many admins and had some how finagled her creation of page that was really fallacious. Could you please look into this?

Lastly, thanks again. When an other admin chooses to delete the article, will you have anything to add? Will there be any recourse other then a resubmission? Ngoesseringer (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADELI Medical Center

Hi Jim. I see that you have deleted my article on the ADELI Medical Center as being too pro-marketing. I understand that the article should be written without a bias, but what I merely did (and I also mentioned this on page where I created the article so that a member of your team would see it) is that I translated the Russian version of the article into English and added few more words.

Please open the following article in Google Chrome and let Google translate the article into English. It is basically the same as thing as I wrote/translated, but mine was turned down:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D0%A6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80

If the Wikipedia editors are expecting the others to be fair, how come that one article gets published, but the almost identical version in English gets turned down? With all due respect, this does not seem very fair to me. I am more than happy to re-write the article, if there is anything in particular you want me to change, but if that is so, please let me know what do I need to re-phrase, instead of deleting the entire article. There should be a dialogue between the editors and submitters, and not a subjective decisions taken without prior consultation Fixxer85 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komsky AFD

Hi, I am one of those single issue editors. I like the subject, noticed his posting on Facebook and decided to contribute, but I've done so without any wrongdoing. After reading the deletion page, I noticed that redpenofdoom removed a citation about the amount of people that watched his anthem for he patriots, saying they weren't watching him. But it wasn't the claim of the article. Then a later editor faulted the subjects notability because according to him no one watched the game on live TV. However, if he had seen the page before redpenofdoom subjectively removed the proof that it was seen by an enormous audience, he wouldn't have made his comment and may not have voted delete. Do you find it suspicious that one editor removed such an important fact about he subject of an article and then had that sway the vote of another? Selmaflora294 (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion of any impact on another editor is completely untrue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I read through the discussion between the editor above and the Selma editor.. Please take a look at what has been going on. They are arguing about the viewership of a game that one editor wants to make a point of notability. Who is right? Ngoesseringer (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Jim	Talk	Contribs	Sandbox	Logs	Blocks	Deletions	Protections	Scripts	Bird talk	Commons