User talk:Jnormy

Culinary Institute of America
You really should not just move articles without a consensus. Usually you state on the articles talk page that you would like to do this and then tag the article appropriately. I am not saying the move is good or bad, there is just a proper democratic process for doing this here.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Worlds of Flavor International Conference & Festival, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Worlds of Flavor International Conference & Festival appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Worlds of Flavor International Conference & Festival has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Worlds of Flavor International Conference & Festival and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Worlds of Flavor International Conference & Festival with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Worlds of Flavor International Conference & Festival.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Article about Tim Ryan
An article is created when the subject is deemed notable in his or her own right. Notability is not inherited. If you cannot find any significant information about Ryan as a person (as opposed to being president of the cooking school), then perhaps there is not any notability. If he is notable, you need to provide reliable, impartial, third-party sources documenting his notability. What is his academic background; what did he do before coming to CIA; what books and papers has he had published? -- Orange Mike 17:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat, you need to provide reliable, impartial, third-party sources documenting his notability. Where are the footnotes to newspaper and magazine articles, books, etc.? Are these prizes truly notable, or are they redlinked because the organizations and/or awards are not of note? (And always, avoid peacock words.)You say he has notability for his academic office, but all the stuff I see is about him as a cook. I don't pretend to be an expert in food-related subjects; you might want to consult with somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink! -- Orange Mike 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Ryan
I've noticed your attempt to get some CIA info. on Wikipedia, and I'd love to help you. Some of the issues you are having is that you are copying information from websites which is plagiarism, and Wikipedia could get in legal trouble for users adding such information to the encyclopedia. I'm sure you have looked at the CIA article after I edited it to remove the plagiarism, and as such think of that when you are trying to create the article for Dr. Ryan. What you also need to do is try to find other sources outside of the CIA website to source your edits. Good places to look would be the World Association of Chefs website, along with information in the CIA text books and The Making of a Chef by Michael Rhulman. When I am done with the semester I will take the time to work on the article as well. He is clearly a notable academic is should have an article on Wikipedia, we just need to go about it in the proper Wikipedia format.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culinary Institute of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bocuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about The Culinary Institute of America (Korean translation)
Hello, Jnormy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Culinary Institute of America (Korean translation) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/The Culinary Institute of America (Korean translation).

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vvvaggot (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Jnormy. 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 Articles for deletion/The Culinary Institute of America (Korean translation), 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.
 * 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Esquivalience t 20:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing in Wikipedia
Hello Jnormy. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jnormy. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for disclosing your employer in this diff.
 * Editing about your employer creates a conflict of interest in Wikipedia, and WP manages COI in two ways: disclosure and prior review.


 * A tag to has been added to the CIA article's talk page, as well as the other articles you have edited for your employer, so the disclosure is done there.


 * As I noted above, the second piece of COI management is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense.  In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done.  No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.  So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article.  Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest.   If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.


 * What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
 * (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and
 * (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the  tag to flag it for other editors to review.  In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once.  Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example.  This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.


 * By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.    (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).


 * But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important!  There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia.   Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines.  Learning and following these is very important, and takes time.   Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines.  Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.


 * I hope that makes sense to you.


 * I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.   If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.


 * Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

email note
Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)