User talk:Jimfbleak

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 ~~~~.

Kiron Entry

Hi Jim, I noticed that you deleted both my entry and a later one by someone else. I have no association with Kiron, I just work in education myself and find their organisation interesting a it helps refugees gain access to higher education. What is needed here to make this entry neutral? Thanks in advance! Bluecloud (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. Unreferenced, non-notable, spam, possible copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

query

Hi Jim, hope you are doing good. This is K.D.Satyam here, I have some latest update in my filmography section, Recently I have written a film called "Mukkabaaz", This is the Wiki link to that page.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukkabaaz. And as you said that I should not update any further, pls let me know how to go about it. This is the Reference Link. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/brawler-1039664 Pls have a look into it. Regards K.D.Satyam (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

K.D.Satyam, that's just a film review, which isn't really advancing the article much since it adds no real facts, just a plot summary and the reviewer's opinion. Also adding positive film reviews just makes it look spammy. If you want a critical reception section, you need to use aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes, not just cheery-pick good reviews. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks jim.. will keep that in mind... K.D.Satyam (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion

You just deleted my sandbox without affording me any time to defend myself first. That's quite unfair. I have made over 7,000 edits and consider myself a responsible contributor. By what right did you act so hastily? Zozoulia (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Zozoulia, the point of speedy deletion G11 is that an article is promotional enough to not need discussion, and no number of edits gives protection from that. Another editor nominated it for SD, and I agreed. For example, guides fraud victims through the chargeback process and assists them in expediting their refunds from the credit card companies is one person's opinion, not an incontestable fact, and the reference is hardly neutral in tone, despite being in a usually acceptable source. No alternatives are mentioned, nor is the fact that card companies give chargeback for free. Having said that, I accept that you are a GF editor, and I'll have another look to see whether I can restore and edit. It will have to wait until tomorrow though, I'm logging off soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I remind you that a text inside a sandbox is not a published article. It is by definition incomplete and not yet ready to go live. With regard to this particular draft, there was much more to add. BTW, a credit card issuing bank can reject a chargeback request without even processing it and often does, because if it loses the issue can go to arbitration, which costs money, and some banks then pass that charge on to the card holder. So I cannot state unilaterally that banks give "chargebacks for free." Zozoulia (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Zozoulia, user pages are not exempt from G11. Apart from the promotional tone, there is also an issue with notability. The company is just one year old, and you give no hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits that could help confirm notability. The only item that might help show notability is the claimed $1 million recovery, but although you present that as a fact, it lacks an independent verifiable source. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, press releases, YouTube, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. In this case, the claim is sourced to a company press release and a quote from a company spokesman, as is the medium.com reference. I'll shortly restore your sandbox, with some editing, to give you a chance to clean it up, but even with a more neutral tone I think it will be challenged on A7 notability as well as G11 if it goes live without any facts about the company other than what it claims to do, and without independent third-party sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Jimfbleak In which case I'll forget about the article and work on something else after the restoration of my sandbox. Thanks for the clarification. Zozoulia (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Skin cell gun

Please explain your unilateral decision to delete this article that has been on Wikipedia for years. You said 'unambiguous advertising'. Please justify this assertion. erielhonan 14:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In response to your reply on my talk page - I believe your unilateral decision to delete a long-standing article was improper. Please restore the article and submit to AfD so that any decision taken is a community decision. Thank you. erielhonan 16:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)