User talk:Jjhen

NPOV
I notice that you recently made a set of edits to Ben Sasse, who's currently a candidate for U.S. Senate.

Please note that one of the three core policies of Wikipedia is "Neutral point of view" (in Wikiparlance, usually abbreviated to "NPOV"). It's particularly critical in edits to articles on current politicians and political controversies. Ideally, our Wikipedia edits should give no hint as to our own views and positions. I'm not sure if that's the case with your Sasse edits: I get the impression that you're trying to expose his hypocrisy on ACA and Medicare D. If so, this is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.

It's also especially important in editing such articles to make sure that we represent sources accurately, particularly when we use direct quotations. I'm afraid that you failed to do this in one of your Sasse edits. In your version of the paragraph about his speech, sourced to the Fremont Tribune article, you include the passage: "He was quoted as saying that 'you can expect a new bipartisanship' and also..." In fact, the quote from the speech in the Tribune is "Lest people think that there's some broad signal that's been sent to Washington and you can expect that there will be a new bipartisanship, I would argue that the House of Representatives in particular is a far more polarized body than at any point in recent history." The meaning of your excerpted quote is almost exactly the opposite of the meaning of the full quote. I trust that this was inadvertent on your part; but I'll caution you to take great care to avoid such mistakes in the future. - Ammodramus (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Borchers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Borchers 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 Articles for deletion/Patrick Borchers until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ammodramus (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your recent edit to AFD-Patrick Borchers, may I make a few suggestions, since you're somewhat new to this editing business? If you noticed after your edit, your comment continued on the same line as the comment to which you were responding.  There are a few ways to avoid that.  One is to put a double-return between the two paragraphs.  A second is to return, then put one or more colons in front of each of your paragraphs&mdash;each colon will indent the text a bit more, as you can see was the case with this paragraph, which I prefaced with a colon.
 * When you're registering an opinion for the first time at an article-for-deletion page, the usual Wikipractice is to preface your paragraph with an asterisk, which will place a bullet and then indent the paragraph. Also, if you think the article should be kept, as appears to be the case, then you might want to begin with a boldfaced Keep before explaining your view.  (If you'll look at some of the other articles for deletion, you'll see how this is done.)
 * Finally, after you've made a comment at an AfD page or a talk page, you can sign it by typing four tildes: ~ This will produce a signature with a link to your user page and talk page, and a time stamp.
 * Please forgive me if I'm being excessively didactic: I know that you're a fairly new editor, and it takes some time to pick up all the practices and techniques usual at WP. Good luck with your further edits; if you've got questions, please feel free to leave a note at my talk page (click on the "talk" after my username, then start a new section, or, to continue a discussion, edit the existing section.)
 * Four tildes, which turns into: Ammodramus (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=582434109 your edit] to Patrick Borchers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * been cited repeatedly by U.S. Courts of Appeal, including Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL 673 F.3d 952 (2d Cir. 2012), discussing whether the New York Courts had jurisdiction in a tort

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=584303870 your edit] to Patrick Borchers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, Jjhen. 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 Patrick Borchers, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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 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. 70.235.85.201 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor and otherwise edits
I'm afraid that I have to call your attention to a Wikisolecism that you committed in your most recent edit to the Patrick Borchers article.

The problem is that you checked the "This is a minor edit" box while inserting content. This is contrary to WP:MINOR, which states that "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor" [italics in original]. In essence, an edit marked as minor must be one that no editor would dispute, at any time or for any reason. In practice, this means things like the correction of obvious misspellings, punctuation errors, formatting problems, etc. Any addition or removal of content should not be marked thus.

The reason why this is an issue is that some editors set the preferences on their watchlists to exclude minor-marked edits. To such an editor, marking a non-minor edit as minor might look like an attempt to slip a significant change under the radar.

I'd personally suggest ignoring the existence of the minor-edit box, and believe that Wikipedia would be better off without it. If you do want to use it, you should very definitely read WP:MINOR, and assume that no edit is a minor one unless you've checked it against the criteria there. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)