User talk:Jhasak

Proposed deletion of Adi Hasak


The article Adi Hasak has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. J bh Talk  15:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Adi Hasak
Hi, I'm Jbhunley. Jhasak, thanks for creating Adi Hasak!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider returning to the article to address the issue(s).

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. J bh Talk  18:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Adi Hasak. ''You have stated you are the son of the subject of this article. This is a conflict of interest. I have warned you several times about removing the COI tag on the article. If you do so again I will request that you be blocked from editing for disruption.'' J bh  Talk  15:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

This is my first time posting on wikipedia and it is very unfriendly in terms of understanding how to post and edit. My apologies. I did not know that you monitor in such a strict way. And you can keep providing me links to policies but things are very unclear to me especially since everything written is objective and not promotional.

Jhasak (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Jonathan
 * I understand it can be confusing here while Wikipedia says 'anyone can edit' it is in practice more 'anyone who takes the time to read and understand a lot of arcane rules, guidelines and policies can edit'. WP:FIRST gives a good overview and we have very strict rules about editing biographies of living people. The most important is that everything must be backed up by sources. Think of it this way, if the article claims something the reader should be able to ask 'where did that information come from' and the answer should be in a reference. Those references need to meet certain criteria before that can be used the in's and out's of which can be a bit arcane. What is considered promotional here is also a bit counter-intuitive. It is not just tone ie "this person is the best singer ever ..." rather it includes creating articles for topics and subjects which do not meet the notability criteria or adding more material to an article than what can be supported by the sources. For instance in this article there was a statement about working on an adaptation of Eyewitness . It is an objective statement but there are no sources to back it up and Wikipedia has specific criteria for things that have not happened yet. Since it has not been covered it can be seen as a way of puffing up a biography. For instance what happens in three or four years if Eyewitness is never produced, for whatever reason, and the article still says it is being written? Our policies exist to avoid thing like that. Also, articles that have editors who have or appear to have a COI are subject to even more scrutiny. We strongly recommend that people not edit about themselves, their work, friends or family members because what seems objective or common knowledge to them probably is not and once there is an article both good and bad things that are reported in reliable sources end up in the article. We have policies cf. WP:BLP to limit harm but they boil down to 'can the claim be properly sourced or cited as significant opinion'. As I said on Talk:Adi Hasak the only sources I have been able to find are reviews that say he wrote the screenplays and that then give a one line poor review of the writing. That does not give much information to write a biography with given our sourcing requirements. There seems to be a consensus forming that Adi is notable enough for a Wikipedia article but I do not know where it will go from there. I hope this helps you understand what has been going on the last few days. Please let me know if you have any questions. There are also very helpful editors over at the WP:TEAHOUSE who can be of help. J bh  Talk  15:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing with a conflict of interest
I wanted to come on and give a little bit of a head's up about editing with a conflict of interest and about editing in general. I need to stress that you need to read over this and take all of this seriously. Since you do have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) you will be held to a higher standard than other editors since you obviously stand to gain by having an article on Wikipedia. Not following policy and looking like you're only here to promote yourself can and will lead to a permanent block from editing. I need to stress this: you can be blocked from editing if people think that you're not here to positively edit Wikipedia.

If you continue to add unsourced information to Wikipedia then you run the risk of getting blocked. Wikipedia is not like WP:LINKEDIN so you do not WP:OWN the page. In other words, you cannot mandate what is or isn't on the page. I'm mentioning this last part because we've had people who have tried to whitewash their articles when something negative happened in their career. This is something to take into serious consideration. I also need to stress that more and more people are getting savvy to people trying to write their own articles on Wikipedia, so make sure that you're aware that people can see that you've edited the article and that you've edit warred with another editor over unsourced content- something that may reflect negatively on you in the future. Also, if an article is considered to be promotional then that raises the chances of it getting deleted and if there's a strong COI with the article, that can make it more likely that the article will not be re-created.

Also, you cannot make the article too promotional, as Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself. I need to stress this again since your edits have suggested that you have a very specific idea of what you want in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself. I don't exactly like to start off on someone's talk page with comments about blocks, but your edit history at Adi Hasak shows that you have repeatedly removed tags and tried to re-add information to the article despite another editor trying to explain why on the article's talk page- and trying to compromise with you.

So here's the bottom line: you need to edit within policy. If you continue to try to re-add information to the article and remove tags, I will block you- possibly permanently, but ideally only temporarily. I need to make sure that you understand that you need to edit within policy and work with other editors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)