User talk:Jwarren36

Welcome[edit]

Hi, Glad to see that you may just come out of retirement and back into the innovations of the world.PEACETalkAbout 08:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book?[edit]

Jim, is this book co-authored by you? Computers, Freedom and Privacy (Paperback) by Jim C. Warren, Jay Thorwaldson, Bruce Koball • Publisher: Ieee Computer Society (June 1991) • ISBN-10: 0818625651 • ISBN-13: 978-0818625657 PEACETalkAbout 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not sure who's askin' the question, nor why, nor what or how I should answer - but hyar 'tis.

Yes - although it's more accurate to say that the three of us were the editors; not the authors (since it's mostly a transcript of the talks and debates at the conference), except that I DID "author" the Introduction.

This was a publication of the IEEE Computer Society; a softback, perfect-bound, 8.5x11-format book. It was a word-for-word transcript of each of the presentations at the First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, held on the San Francisco Peninsula, March 25-28. I founded, organized and chaired the event as a pro-bono effort, under the auspices of the CPSR - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilty.

The book - or proceedings - includes extensive cross-references, indexes and footnotes (that Bruce and I added as long-time computer pros; Jay is a lifelong professional journalist - and was one of my housemates at the time - who did the initial editing of the verbatim transcripts using the sessions' audio and video tapes).

Jwarren36 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)jim; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Warren[reply]

COI[edit]

Hello, Jwarren36. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jim Warren (computer specialist), you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd echo those concerns. Much of the article was written by you, is either inadequately sourced (that is, the references don't meet meet Wikipedia guidelines as acceptable sources, per WP:RELIABLE), or lacks sources altogether. Similarly, the article contains some trivial and anecdotal content that probably can't be verified, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. While a subject's input is welcome concerning getting the facts right, some of these difficulties often result from autobiographical involvement. I've requested help at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious, per your edit summaries, as to which email suggestion advised you to remove templates on unsourced sections. Please don't continue to do so so unless inline cites to reliable sources are added. Thank you, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Hope this is how to post a reply to your msg.] Each email I've received, notifying me that "Wikipedia page User talk:Jwarren36 has been changed", has included the comment, "You could also reset the notification flags for all your watched pages on your watchlist." I assumed that the !-box notices were the "notification flags" and were the "watchlist". If I shouldn't have removed them, I apologize. (It's not obvious as to what "notification flags" and a "watchlist" - mentioned in each email - are.)

(I also wonder what the "Watch this page" checkbox is for - for me, or for someone else? But it's checked so I'm leavin' it checked.) Jwarren36 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)jim[reply]