Talk:Jon Bounds

Notability
I question the notability of the subject. Many of the points made in the article require citations and those that are cited, such as Twitpanto, did not receive any notable press or social media attention. The sources given are mostly from the subject's own websites, not from quality, verified sources.

Subject is called a regular contributor to The Guardian newspaper but in fact has only had three articles published there over the course of a decade and does not have an author/contributor page there.

There are no citations listed and I cannot find any for the BBC work referred to.

In the history of the article, the subject himself has definitely contributed (under the name 'Bounder', which the article says is a nickname for him) and it seems some other contributions may be from friends or the subject himself under an alias, given that the information is personal and cannot be verified (romantic partners, date of birth, where he is based, where he went to school).

If uncited info and personal information removed, there is little of substance here.

Journotracker (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (GMT)


 * Please do not restore unsourced or poorly sourced material. Note that this article is under discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove properly sourced and cited material. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Journotracker: it seems that you and I look at different articles. The article I see does not mention "regular contributor" to The Guardian, but "has written professionally for", which is sourced. Yes, a user Bounder made edits to the article, two of them, on 19 October 2011, one a zero edit, one removing. I don't see your problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you question it, Your attempts to remove material cited to reliable sources have been reverted, and now you're lashing out. One of the properly cited facts you have attempted to remove is Bounds' inclusion in the Birmingham Post's "Power 50". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The source for that was dead when I rejigged the article. Somebody has subsequently found an archived version of the page by the looks of things. I must admit it was irritating to work for hours on an article only for all the changes to be dismissed, but I have no personal beef here, I'm just contributing to and learning about the Wikipedia community. ( Journotracker ); Talk 10:01, 16 April 2015 (GMT)

Somebody has now taken out all the citations needed tags that somebody else and myself put in last night, and tags indicating that the page needs to be reviewed. Surely that's not OK? Many more citations are needed if this article is to stay, and it's counterproductive to get rid of tags that indicate how it can be improved. ( Journotracker ); Talk 10:06, 16 April 2015 (GMT)


 * I don't understand your tagging. Citations are "needed" only for contentious claims. Facts that have not been questioned since 2009 seem hardly contentious. I also don't understand what you mean by "is to stay". The article has been suggested for deletion, result "speedy keep". Tags don't improve an article, to my understanding, but are annoying to our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, instead of tag-bombing, just get off your butt and find additional sources. Montanabw (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My original edit that started this discussion was a result of me looking for sources, failing to find them, and removing unsourced or badly sourced material (in line with WIkipedia's policy on living persons). Indeed, I agree getting off your butt is the right move! I tried that, and it brought me to the talk page. I'm new to Wikipedia - is it not correct to tag unverified information? It may be annoying to readers, but isn't it better they know what they're looking at might not be accurate? Just because info has been there since 2009 doesn't make it any more verified or sourced. ( Journotracker ); Journotracker 09:46, 18 April 2015 (GMT)
 * Your original edit removed material cited to reliable sources; and a recording of the subject's voice. I'm not sure how many times I need to say that (I think this is the fourth; in as many venues) before you stop pretending it's not so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Journotracker, it's better to tag lightly and give other editors a chance to fix things rather than to just delete and tag every other sentence. The "refimprove" tag at the top is better than tons of internal cn tags, and it's better to use the "deadlink" tag than to just toss stuff.   Montanabw (talk)  02:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jon Bounds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708140858/http://www.rhubarbradio.com:80/djs/julesandjon.aspx to http://www.rhubarbradio.com/djs/julesandjon.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Bounds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311184103/http://blogs.birminghampost.net/power50/2008/07/14-jon-bounds-blogger.html to http://blogs.birminghampost.net/power50/2008/07/14-jon-bounds-blogger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)