Jump to content

User talk:Jimfbleak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dwab3 (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 19 August 2014 (→‎Potential COI: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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


Gerd Heinrich

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]




deleted page/ mixtape video

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 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]


CMDportal=

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Deletion

You blocked the creator, the page Bear Me can be deleted now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page, Arturo J. García-Solá. Violating CR for over 24 hours. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

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)[reply]

July 2014

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
and you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rona1964/Biblionef

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)[reply]


== User_talk:Carlo_Bruno == Speedy Deletion [[1]]

Hi Jim please excuse me if this is the right way to contact you... this is my first time!!! You have deleted my article about the italian painter Giuseppe De Lugi caused by a copyryght violation of www.giuseppedeluigi.com pages but that website has manage by me (you can verify on whois service) and I'm the author of text of that page so there is no rights violation, I hope you'll pubblish the article again!! If you need further information please don'hesitate to ask me! Ciao Carlo

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staten_Island_Clown)

Hello Jim, not sure if I am contacting you right either, I do not use wikipedia that often- other than for research. However my reason for contacting you is because you deleted an article I contributed to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staten_Island_Clown) a while back that was actually big sensation and story here on Staten Island and the claim was for promotion? I'm not sure as to what you mean by this, or how you could make that accusation? I am unaffiliated with the production company that pulled of the brilliant viral marketing stunt. I am a professor at one of the local colleges here on the island and I believe that this is exactly the kind of subject that belongs on wikipedia for students to see the power of social media. This story went worldwide in a matter of days and was our papers biggest story in its 150 existent, I know this because I have friends over at the Advance. I believe this deletion was some sort of a mistake considering I wasn't promoting anyone or anything other then the facts of the story and how genius it was, this was a huge story in New York and I believe it should be documented on wikipedia. Thank you for your time. - John Mastron

Speedy Deletion article Giuseppe De Luigi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_De_Luigi

Hi Jim about my article [[2]] that you have deleted I have add on the official website of Giuseppe De Luigi a CC license for texts (CC-BY-SA 3.0) please can you verify? It's enough or I need to specify something further? I have to post the article again or you'll resume it? thank you for your collaboration!!!! [[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo Bruno (talk • contribs) 09:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jim I have added some wikipedia internal links to my article and book code with references to Italian Catalogue (which contains for books all locations). Please review it and say me if there are further needs, thank you in advance, Carlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo Bruno (talk • contribs) 09:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References added to Giuseppe De Luigi Page

Dear Jim thank you to be patient for my first article on wikipedia!!! I have added some references but I think that the main reference is the italian page about Giuseppe De Luigi https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_De_Luigi because it contains the same data I have published in english. In first version of article I have linked that page (on left column voice "Languages"), have I to insert it in the body of article as reference too? I can't be able to find ISBN code of books ( I have one of them) but I have provided references to italian national library organisation, I hope could be enough! A last answer... To publish a photo of Giuseppe De Luigi (1936) have I to upload it again on wkipedia or can I pubblish it from de luigi website? thank You in advance Carlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo Bruno (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenreiss (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim: I had created the page Moo Yong Lee, which you deleted. I'm writing to determine how I can modify it so as to re-list it and honor Grandmaster Lee. There is no marketing here. He is 77 years old and retired, and not looking for anything. His schools are all self-sufficient, so there is no need to promote them either. The purpose of this page is to show the world the facts about how Grandmaster Lee's life has affected so many.

I had written his website for him also, so there will be a lot of similarities, but when I rewrote the text for wikipedia, I specifically did not copy anything from the website. However, there must be similarities.

Please advise how I may proceed. Thank you, in advance, for any assistance you may provide. Ken Reiss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenreiss Kenreiss (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aleckeegan19

Hello. Could this user please be blocked due to a vandalism only account. I have warned the user on his/her talk page but they are persisting on not taking any notice. Could you please have a look at it. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kualilance

Hi Jim, I'm trying to figure out how to reinstate the Kuali page [4]. Last December, it was blanked, and it appears the reason was because it looked like an advert or may have been in violation of copyright. Can you advise me why it was removed and what course of action I should take to have it reinstated? Thanks! 

Kualilance (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: TIGER21Amanda

Hi Jim, you deleted the page TIGER 21 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TIGER_21&action=edit&redlink=1 ). I was hoping to make edits to reinstate it. Can you please advise me how to do so/what changes should be made so that it is not: "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion"? Additionally, I had made another wiki page that linked to the TIGER 21 page, the new page is currently submitted for review,will its approval be affected by the broken link? Thanks! TIGER21Amanda (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC) TIGER21Amanda (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: Lancehoosier

Hi again Jim,

I've opted for a different user name to update the Kuali page. If I read the rest of your response correctly, the text, even though it comes from our open source software consortium pages is copyrighted and can't be used without explicit permission, right?

No links allowed in the article seems fair enough. But as for the spam charges--I don't know if it will be profitable to dispute that charge with you, but we are a community that fields member contributions to build better modules for higher ed. Much of the language that describes the initiatives and products this open source community creates will reflect that mission and may sound spam-ish, but is generalized to capture what these software modules do. What constitutes spam-like language?

For the interim, I'd like to revise and update the page with the goal of getting it reinstated. Can you move the article to my subpage so I can tweak to match wikipedia standards? At what point after that will we be able to redirect back to a main Kuali Foundation page?

Thanks for your help, Lancehoosier (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Renewable Energy Agency

Hi, Jimfbleak. You deleted International Renewable Energy Agency per WP:G12. Did you checked the history of that article to find a version which does not include copyrighted information? I can't check it myself but I think there should be that kind of version. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Could you restore also the talk page? Beagel (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenable Network Security

I was about to approve Draft:Tenable Network Security after having improved the cites and a few other things when I saw that you had done a G11 on a previous version of an article. I would appreciate it if you could look at the current draft and let me know if it you still think it is a G11. If not, I'll approve it, if you do, let me know whether the issues can be made more specific or if it simply that you and I have different feelings for whether it is a G11. (Note, I feel it is no better than Start class, but hadn't decided on Start vs. Stub)Naraht (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jimfbleak. You have new messages at Naraht's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Naraht (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD follow-up

Hello Jimfbleak. I have a question regarding a page you recently deleted which I tagged during a recent changes patrol using the Huggle interface. The page was titled: At The Mercy Of The State. I considered the page to be nonsensical fabrications forming a hoax of pure vandalism. I noticed however that another tag was present on the deleted page identifying the writing as a copyright infringement of some other published work. I want to re-evaluate my determination that the content was nonsense as it seems if it is published by another, there may be some substance to the writing that I may have missed. Will you please provide a link to the page where the text was copied from to assist my re-evaluation and perhaps advise me as to where and how the page came to be tagged a copyvio along with the tag I appended. If by chance the copyvio tag was added by me as well, the huggle script would have malfunctioned as I did not intentionally tag the page for that violation. Thank you for assisting me in this matter. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Sheldon Scott

Hi,

You deleted a page I posted for Senator Sheldon Scott citing copywrite infringement. In fact it is not copywrite infringement as I have full permissions to use and edit the material.

I'm new to wiki but I thought that if there was a suspicion of copywrite infringement it was protocol to contact the editor and begin a discussion rather than deleting without checking? Mfs104 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)mfs104[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Jim Hagemann Snabe

Hi Jim, I was out editing the Sybase page and notice Jim Hagemann Snabe was a key person in the company with a broken link, and you had deleted the page. A quick industry search seems to indicate his page is worth creating. Is there anything I should know before attempting this? - Rick Alrich44 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Jim. I wasn't planning on "cutting & pasting" others work. I'm not even sure I will get around to this one, or that he may be that notable.

Nah, I didn't think you were thinking that either. ;) We're good, I think. Thanks for your help.

Hi Jim

I submitted my article for "review" and instead it was deleted on the same day...why if you put an article for review why is it deleted I literally spent days working on the content, references and linking within the wiki system...my main issue after submitting for review, the system told me it would take weeks since 916 articles were ahead of me BUT instead, on the same day I submitted the article for review its DELETED! very unprofessional....please if at all possible put back my article into my sandbox, so i can fix it...since you deemed it too commercial. I thought the purpose of putting the article through review was to get feedback not be deleted...WOW! I'm a volunteer I don't have time for this.

thank you. Turner Paige

Speedy deletion of company page

Hello, there! The company page I added was deleted under the G11 criteria for unambiguous promotion or advertisement. I'd like to know exactly what has been done to make the page more encyclopedic. I have worked with a few fellows on Wikipedia on this and they have worked with me for a while to ensure that the page follows the encyclopedia's standards. At this point, I'm completely confused as to what could have possibly made it promotional. Thank you for your concern! Miguel (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply! I think I'll have to get in touch with some folks regarding the information on the first bullet point. I found it very difficult to come across anything regarding earnings, except for a $6 million figure (which I'm sure is outdated by now). Ditto for number of employees. Location is in Santa Clara, California, as it said in the infobox. Should I have included this in the main text as well? (i.e. "Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a company in Santa Clara, California, blablabla, etc.")

The "Works With Zoom" program was, in my opinion, a passing fact. This was just underlining the fact that there are pieces of hardware distributed and sold by other companies that attest to compatibility with the software that Zoom VC provides. Should I remove it? I would oblige if necessary, as well as removing any partnership information.

Criticism was difficult to come by. I think I found one review in the backwaters that was close to being negative. What should I do about this? Should I also still include the awards section? That's evergreen, since awards are not retractable by the awarding institution.

Regarding the client base, I think there's no discussion available about that. Your rationale is sound (i.e. It can change from week to week).

Thanks for your input, quick response, and helpful disposition! Miguel (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply! I'm interviewing the firm today to get more information from them (such as number of employees). You can see what edits I've made so far at the special subpage I made. If you can spare the time, please let me know what I can and must do to improve the article aside from including more concise company information. Meşteşugarul (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I could get out of the company after the interview was that they have precisely 71 employees. I will round that down to 70. They were unwilling to disclose any revenue, although I have information about seeding investments that were made, which I'm able to reference at a later point in time. Other than that, I think the article might be ready for publication, on account of the fact that I found valid criticisms. Please let me know (if you have the time and patience) if you have any objections, either on my talk page, your talk page, or the newly published article's talk page. All the best and thank you immensely for your input and critique! You've been indubitably valuable in assisting me. Meşteşugarul (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe De Luigi english page

Hi jim have you reviewed the new version of Giueppe de Luigi Page on my sanbox? Is it ok now? I have to copy contents or you move draft version to Giuseppe De Luigi page? thank you in advance for your collaboration. Carlo Bruno (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Deletion article Ama Foundation

Hi Jim, You deleted the page Ama Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ama_Foundation&action=edit&redlink=1) at 11:07, on 27 June 2014 (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ama-foundation.org).

I am not the owner of the external website (www.ama-foundation.org) but I have permission from that owner. They are a non-profit organization so they are willing to donate copyrighted materials. They want to use the same content for creating their Wikipedia page. Since I am helping to manage their online contents, they want me to establish their Wikipedia page using all the contents from the site.

How can I verify that I have permission from that owner and then what we should do in order to create the Wikipedia page? Could you please let me know all the stage for that. My talk link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ikyeong

Thanks, Ikyeong (talk)

Speedy Deletion article Alan C. Fox

Hi Jim, You deleted the page Alan C. Fox on July 11th. I posted that page by accident, not knowing that it was going live. I'm new to wikipedia and have since studied up on the rules and guidelines for how to submit a page. It was flagged as being promotional, but I'm pretty sure that's because it was because it was so rough.

I've updated the page in my sandbox and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks!

My talk link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pitneyj

Thanks, Pitneyj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stauer company article

Looks like a previous incarnation was removed as advertising. I think it's probably fair game now for at least a stubbie that skirts that particular offense, assume you as prior remover would not be adverse? I mentioned it just recently in some updating of article on the Quartz crisis and noticed wikilink came up red. They're not huge, but they're not miniscule either, and their ads have been visible in major mags for at least a decade, sort of like The Learning Company etc. Tx. Chris Rodgers (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nafham article

There was an article about Nafham that you deleted before, Nafham is an established company since 2012 in Egypt and covering K-12 curriculums in 4 Arabic countries and has over 80,000 lesson explained on daily basis. So first, I believe it's OK for it to have an article on Wikipedia. Secondly, I believe the article content was very neutral, if there is something wrong with any text that has been written please let me know. Muhammad S. Habib (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back!

Thanks to the wonders of BT technology, I've had no broadband since 23 July (don't ask...). I'm back, and I'll catch up as soon as possible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I hope your move went smoothly and that you've now unpacked the boxes. Aa77zz (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, move went very well, only problems were with landline (BT, 6 days) and broadband (BT 18 days). We have pictures on the walls, always a good sign Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


eliasch page

why was the Amanda Eliasch page deleted? she is a notable person in the UK and has done a lot for the arts, and has a big profile in the London cultural world. why did her page get deleted? outrageous really. wikipedia leaves many articles of less eminent people but she has been chosen to be removed? why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted seven times so far since every version has been a copyright violation, promotional in tone, or both. Notable or not, the text must be free for us to use, and neutral and encyclopaedic in tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


so why not help edit it and make it a solid version that appeals to wikipedia editing team? why delete? would you do this to thousand other profiles of notable people in Britain and Europe? Double standards and it is pretty disappointing. You need to act professionally. Don't abuse your role. It was up for many years before people started vandalising the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted thousands of articles including many profiles of notable British and European people, so I don't see how that is double standards or abuse of my admin role. If you can support your claim, do so, otherwise I'll ignore it as a rant from an anonymous editor (although you should note that the bot is signing your edits even though you have chosen not to do so). We cannot legally carry copyright text. We, as policy, do not accept promotional material. I am not obliged to improve articles, although I do so if practicable. You are the one who is concerned about the article, so it's surely more appropriate for you to write a neutral, referenced, non-copyright version that to invite me to do so. You make another unsupported claim that the article has been vandalised. If that is case, the vandalism could have been undone by you when you spotted it. Or is that just another wild accusation? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not only are you patronising and full of hubris, you also sound increasingly imperious and ignorant. Please do some homework if you want to continue editing articles and use wikipedia. You should not delete / remove articles if they are of notable people but edit it in a manner which helps the page. It is not your role and business to remove notable people's pages entirely. Please do understand that. Very disappointed with your tone which suggests you are rather happy with yourself and your abilities but your action shows you are clearly abusing your role here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential COI

Hi Jim: While searching for a DYK article to review (so that my recent Black Catbird update can make the DYK page), I came across Men of Letters. My concern is that User:Dwab3 has worked only on articles pertaining to Duncan Barrett or his books (see Special:Contributions/Dwab3); I'm guessing he might be self-promoting, though rather under the radar, apparently. There's nothing overtly promotional in any of the articles, but it made me uneasy enough to check. For one thing, I'm disappointed to see there's no self-id, and no mention of potential COI. MeegsC (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was under the impression (from previous discussions on Wikipedia) that this was acceptable by Wikipedia rules, as long as the potential COI tag was added to an article's talk pages, which I always have done, and as long as the sources in the article were from reputable news sources (e.g. national newspapers and magazines) and the content was factual, rather than promotional. What does self-id mean? I'd be happy to do that too if you can explain it to me. Dwab3 (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimfbleak&oldid=621888522"