User talk:Jmmansfield

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jmmansfield! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 174.254.192.213 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

174.254.192.213 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi!
I see you started a new article today in your userspace. Great! Unfortunately, editing Wikipedia is not exactly straightforward and intuitive. There's some helpful links above, and by all means, visit the Teahouse, a Q&A forum for new editors. You can ask questions and receive hopefully understandable answers there, and also learn by seeing the answers to other's questions. It also helps you not feel so overwhelmed. Every noob has problems and this isn't exactly simple.

We have an instructional essay on writing an article for the first time at WP:Your first article that should help you understand the markup. Also, something that helped me greatly was to just go to random articles and compare the visible version of the article to what it looked like in source edit view. It didn't take me too long to figure out how to use the markup. Best of luck to you, and hope you have fun doing this like I do. 174.254.192.213 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Parker (biblicist)
Hello, I came across your recent article Andrew Parker (biblicist) in the uncategorised feed, and noticed that large sections of it are unsupported by references, which is a problem for any article and especially one on a living person (see WP:BLP). Would you like me to remove the unsupported content, or move the article to the draft space where you can continue working on it? (Of course you're welcome to do either of those yourself, also.)

On a separate point, do you know Andrew Parker personally? I'm asking because it's not clear where some of the contents come from, as you haven't cited sources for many statements, giving the impression of possible 'insider information', so to speak. I'm going to post a separate message below with helpful information on what to do if you do have a relationship of any sort with the article subject.

Finally, I also noticed that your user page looks like a partial copy of the article in question. Now that the article has been published, you should remove the contents on your user page, per WP:COPYARTICLE. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Jmmansfield. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comment- and interest. I am so confused by Wiki and how to do this. I don’t have a relationship with Andrew Parker but I did start corresponding with him once I found his website on the internet through another website. So I’m that sense I do now know him but no more than any biographer would get to know their subject. I do ah e the newspaper articles referred to. I am confused particularly because I can see lots of wiki articles about people who aren’t noteworthy at all apart from their job. Eg Revd Joe Hawes, the dean of St edmundsbury cathedral. When I contacted him to ask who had written his article for him, so I could seek some advice on doing this one, he said he didn’t know who had written it for him. What is the best thing I could do now with please, in order to improve the article. I do think Andrew Parkers is interesting (1) because he has had a controversial stage to his career and (2) because his views on the Bible are similarly controversial. I found his own website quite eye opening and compelling and that is why I contacted him in the first place. Thanks again! julie Jmmansfield (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, and apologies for the delay in replying (I don't get notified of messages [posted anywhere other than my own talk page] unless you 'ping' me).
 * I'm by no means an expert, but based on your description, and my reading of WP:EXTERNALREL, you're probably okay to edit this article. I cannot see how merely having been in contact with the subject would be a problem, although you should clearly be mindful of this and not let your views of the person affect your editing, or eg. let them influence what or how you write.
 * As for the newspaper articles you mention, as long as you know their publications and dates, you can and should cite them as references, as offline sources are acceptable (problematic, yes, because it makes it difficult for others to verify what they say, but acceptable all the same).
 * Hope this helps. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrew Parker (biblicist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Parker (biblicist) 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/Andrew Parker (biblicist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. StAnselm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I did the page and I don’t have a connection with Andrew Parker other than that I have read his own website and briefly corresponded with him. I have all the newspaper cuttings I refer to. Should I add actual photos of them as citations. Would that help the problem? What else should I do to improve the page please? Very many thanks for your help. Best regards, julie Jmmansfield (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Parker (biblicist)


A tag has been placed on Andrew Parker (biblicist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Andrew Parker (biblicist). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. StAnselm (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)