Jump to content

User talk:Jake Brockman

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shahroze (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 9 May 2019 (→‎False Accusations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


False Accusations

Hello. In the interest of being amicable yet straightforward, I recommend you being more cognizant of accusations you throw out to other editors. Your COI assessment of myself is based on flawed information obviously conducted without a robust background review. A lot of us do want to contribute information to pages we have an affinity for and/or association with, but that does not necessarily imply a malevolent COI as you have suggested in my situation. If an editor is associated with a page, yet follows all associated guidelines and policies in order to ensure neutrality and accuracy, I think that should be commended. Throwing out accusations will not get you anywhere and will frankly make you appear malicious. Moving forward, I hope you will justify any bold claims you make against other individuals, and remove the COI tag against me on the U of Calgary page once you have reviewed my edits and seen that nothing I have written violates NPOV. Shahroze (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahroze: thanks for reaching out. I appreciate that editors may have their specific areas of interest and focus their editing on those areas. This can be specific articles or more broadly a number of articles on specific topics. That is totally fine and probably quite common. Regardless if someone makes edits on only a few articles or on on many articles, editors should be mindful of balance in those articles and in related articles. I see you have been editing the article about University of Calgary since 2006. According to xtools [1] the vast majority of your edits are on that article. You have added 34,112 bytes and removed 4,495 bytes in 259 edits. With 40% of edits on that page, you are the main editor ([2]). In our conversation about TEC Edmonton, you have declared that you are or have been a student at that university. Conflicts of interest can have may forms. They may be subconscious or be intentional. COI is different to paid editing, which is for reward and I have no reason to believe you are rewarded. However, in the same way as WP guidelines discourage writing about oneself, one's place of work or competitors, this includes any other connected topics. Those guidelines are in place to manage subconscious bias. Given your disclosure and the magnitude of your involvement, I believe the tag is correctly in place.
Let me give an example of such potential subconscious bias. For example, the edit description of the "huge" west campus development clearly indicates awe of some form - aside of that the edit was problematic as copyright violation and had to be redacted. Editing while not logged in to remove COI templated is also indicative. WP:SOCK may also be referred to in this regard. One might get the impression that this "Boost" removal of rankings by Leventio led to removing similar such information from other universities' articles. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to review the article for bias. I'm done arguing about this with you. Shahroze (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fuk

Fuk yooou.....all of the time delet.... Arman Aryamehr (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arman Aryamehr: No need to be uncivil. I am always happy to help editors improve their articles and give feedback on how to get an article over the line. Please check WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. Right now, both articles you recently created do not meet any of the minimum standards. Also WP:BLP is of concern, as those "criminal charges" do not appear to be sourced anywhere. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Changi East Depot

Hi Jake, I do understand that Changi East Depot may subjected to WP:TOOSOON and the main reference source is from LTA unless you want other references from the news media such as Channel NewsAsia, The Straits Times, TODAYOnline and etc as the news media have similar source from the LTA. --Gemsdare (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gemsdare:. GNG seeks significant coverage in independent media. So if the Depot is covered in a meaningful way (and not just as a side note or list item in coverage about the line extension) in independent media such as the ones you gave as example, it should pass. I'd normally discount re-publishing of primary sources (e.g. PR or government publications being retold without editorial context). pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Insight

Hello,

Do you have access to Emerald Insight?

I noticed that you are listed as having access to Emerald Group Publishing.

If so, perhaps you would be able to help me.

I seek this source, to improve the Svedka article.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/case.darden.2016.000009

I've emailed the authors and posted to the Resources Exchange board multiple times to no avail.

Thanks,

Benjamin (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjaminikuta: thanks for reaching out. This article is part of Emerald's "case studies" section, which is different to general access. I have no access to this publication, unfortunately. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. Thanks for the reply. Do you have any idea who might have access? Benjamin (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjaminikuta: I'm sorry, I don't. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Jake Brockman,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Jake Brockman, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I was in Spanish wikipedia creating the category and I switched to english wikipedia to see the articles I was going to include and I created accidentally the category here. I am sorry. --Jakeukalane (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakeukalane: No worries, I thought this would be the case - some accidental posting. No harm done! pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coupled substitution

Why did you move my sandbox page over to an article? Coupled substitution It was My draft and it is certainly not ready for publishing. Can you please explain why you would do this? This must be a mistake--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I see why you did this. I used the wrong syntax to make it a user page. I am taking it back out to my sandbox now and asking for a deletion of the page that you inadvertently created. Just suggesting that you could have guessed that I did not mean for that page to be a real page with that type of title. --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Akrasia25: It's back in user space. Could easily have been an article. Check your facts before accusing other editors. I did not create the article. You created it with defective title. It certainly needed a fix, one way or another. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Apple Card

Editor8778 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

Dear Jake! Please bring Sofia Philosophical Review and Alexander Gungov to AFD. I think both are notable. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pirhayati: That's not what AfD is for. I moved it to draft exactly because of that. They could be notable, but the sources just do not show that. Hence Draft is the right place so that the article can be worked on and correct sources identified to verifiably show notability. The Sofia Philosophical Review article will need independent sources that talk about the journal. Similarly, we need better sources about Gungov. His number of citations seems too low to pass PROF, so will need other coverage for GNG. AfD does not fix content issues. In Draft this can be done.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sofia Philosophical Review is notable because it is indexed in reliable bibliographic databases and it is mentioned in the sources.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pirhayati: That may be so, but the sources don't show that. The first one is primary and the second one is essentially self-published "PR". The article needs sources which support that SPR is widely cited. Pinging @DGG: for his expertise. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jake! I provided reference for two of the databases. Can you please bring it back to main space? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to submit the article for review using the standard AfC process, if not already done so. Another editor will then review the article and move to article space is appropriate.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MakeYouKnowLove

Hello Jake. You recently deleted my page for the band MakeYouKnowLove as well as flagged the image I used as in violation of copyright. I have permission to upload the image to wiki commons so I was wondering what steps I could take to unflag that image. Also, MakeYouKnowLove is cited many times on credited wiki pages (Zayn and his discography) and have a number of press stories written about them, yet you said that citations were insufficient. I was wondering what adjustments I could make to the article to make it acceptable for wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeline.doyle (talk • contribs) 10:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Madeline.doyle: Thanks for reaching out. If Wikimedia has received a certification that you own the copyright then an admin will review this and delete the copyvio tag I left on the images. There is no action to be taken for now. An admin will decide after reviewing and remove the flag, if appropriate. This should happen during the course of the day.
As far as the article is concerned, the sources that have been added are, in my opinions, not reliable. As fas as I can see, they are mostly blogs, promo article or advertorials. Please consult WP:RS for what constitute reliable sources and WP:NBAND for criteria for notability. External articles call them "up-and-coming" and "set to shake up 2019" which is usually an indication that notability has not been achieved yet. Have they been signed up by a major label?
I am curious - if you have uploaded some kind of copyright release to Wikimedia, this indicates you might be closely related to the band. Please consult WP:COI and WP:PAID if this is the case.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash 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/1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_Brockman&oldid=896356505"