User talk:Jns4eva/archive 1

In response to your feedback
Glad you're happy and welcome to Wikipedia! If you need help editing, check out the tutorial or ask a question at the help desk

Ariconte (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

That username report
There is no User:Windy Lodge Hotel. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How strange. I know I saw one (which is why I reported it).  Sorry about that!  Jns4eva (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(New Section from Logic Seeker)
The very director who was heavily promoting his own film, who passed out copies of both the film and boxes of Sharp's writings then had the audacity to say Sharp's nooks were "seen" at the sites, was the "editor" of the entry. How convenient that it was front and center of the subheading.

This is so ridiculously biased that Wikipedia makes Fox News look like actual journalism. If you support BIAS then keep up the pretense that I am the one violating your policy. Occupy was against shameless commercialism, and the editor of the entry that I removed was the very definition of self-interested commercialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic seeker (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Logic Seeker, I'm not sure why you're so angry. I don't support bias, I support Wikipedia's policies which include WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:3RR and summarizing WHY you are deleting particular parts of pages.  Also, as stated in WP:3RR, if you find that your edits are being reverted, you MUST take them to the article talk page.  Irregardless of how you feel about the content, irregardless of whether or not you disapprove of the content, that does not give you permission to violate Wikipedia's rules and policies.  That's why I contacted you in the first place.  Not to belittle you or chastise you for incorrect edits.  Rather, to inform you of Wikipedia's policies, how you were violating them and how to go about constructively editing while adhering to them.  I know you feel strongly about this but you HAVE to talk about it on the talk page.  If you feel as though you're not getting anywhere, then you can alert an admin who will help settle the matter.  But if you continue to remove the content, you'll likely be blocked from editing, irregardless of the validity of your claims.  Jns4eva (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fleming-Neon, Kentucky
Thanks for removing the love letter from Fleming-Neon, Kentucky. Seems to be a major component of my time on Wikipedia. Suggestion? Sometimes calling edits vandalism or other 'trigger' words upsets people. An edit summary of "rm non-notable per wp:listpeople" works better. Thanks again! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! Honestly, I didn't want to call it "vandalism" but it seemed to be the best fit for the actions at the time.  Now I know that I can call it removing non-notable people from pages.  Thanks a lot for the tip, I really appreciate it!  Jns4eva (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I oopsied. It is wp:listpeople, not listpersons. Often I add wp:wtaf "write the article first" as well. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

From TrackPhiTrack
Is there a reason you decided to report my organizations page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrackPhiTrack (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I stated on your talk page. Creating a page about yourself is considered a Conflict of Interest and without any verifiable references, it cannot be accepted.  However, if you wish, you can request that someone create the article for you, provided that your organization is indeed notable.  However, even if the article is accepted into Wikipedia, editing it yourself would be conflict of interest.  See WP:NOR and the links I posted on your talk page for more information.  Jns4eva (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

From Slazenger
In regards to the TutorVista discussion. The editor has made lengthy comments on my talk page and I figured you'd like to read/respond. --Slazenger  (Contact Me) 05:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. Jns4eva (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From Mtghawkesbay
Hi Jns4eva,

Thanks for the feedback. I think I must have accidentally pressed something I wasn't meant to and have submitted a partially finished article. I am currently working on rewriting the article so it reads more cohesively and from a neutral standpoint. I do work for the Museum but we are non-profit and we thought that a Wikipedia page with relevant historical information would benefit interested parties. I will take down our facebook and blog links, I was unaware this was an issue, thank you for pointing it out. I can also format the quotes properly and I have more images to upload.

The link to our homepage on the Frank Carpay site was intentional as the Museum was bequeathed the majority of his collection as the article mentions and we are also the copyright holders for his work, but I am happy to add in a link to our wikipedia article instead when it is up and running.

Please let me know if this is still in violation of the COI terms on creating articles. I am very new to this but am happy to learn and hopefully create a valuable article.

--Mtghawkesbay (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)mtghawkesbay--Mtghawkesbay (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being so willing to discuss the changes! If you need any help, feel free to ask, I'd be happy to lend a hand.  I was confused when I saw that the top of the article said "Not ready for submission" and the bottom said "Awaiting review", but I'm glad that my advice helped you out.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or head over to the Teahouse where you can find all sorts of helpful information or ask questions yourself.


 * For the Frank Carpay article, I think that it would be better if I added the link as an external link, rather than a reference. As far as references go, they have to directly correlate to the information being stated which is why I had to take it down.  Had you linked to a specific page on your website that referenced how he donated his collection and copyright to your museum, that would have been a valid reference.  But a simple link to your website seems promotional, which is why it was flagged and removed.


 * As far as your COI goes, I think you're handling it in the best possible way. Most COI editors simply create the page and wonder why they were warned and the page vanished when they log on next.  When you submit the article for creation, you allow a second, unbiased pair of eyes to verify the content is non-neutral and can offer tips.  While Wikipedia usually doesn't want COI editors directly editing articles about themselves (because it's very hard to be truly impartial when you're close to a subject's nature), if you can better the encyclopedia with your article then by all means continue working on it and resubmit it.  But be sure to find plenty of third party references that verify your museum's Notability.  Thanks again for your willingness to discuss the article and if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to help.  Hopefully we can see your museum's page up on Wikipedia soon!  Jns4eva (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hello, here is a kitten!

Mtghawkesbay (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 

Mediation Comment
Thank you for all of your assistance and continuing to pursue the matter to ensure that it was dealt with approptiately! --Slazenger  (Contact Me) 03:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

More from Mtghawkesbay
Hi Jns4eva,

I have revised the content and links and will add in further references over the next week. Any suggestions please let me know.

Thanks for your help.--Mtghawkesbay (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Mtghawkesbay

Hi Jns4eva,

Thanks for your feedback. I am more than happy to keep improving the article so any additional comments are most welcome. I will start the changes now as we would really like this article to be available to the public. Thank you very much.

--Mtghawkesbay (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)mtghawkesbay

Demand to review Baildsa article
Hello there, thanks for the good advices about the Baildsa article. Can you have a look at it now ? I think it turns out very well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Baildsa  Thanks ! CristinaMishka (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Malinaccier ( talk ) 16:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

songbooth
Hi Jns4eva

i resubmitted if you can please look it over again? thanks! Katiemcguigs (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

i was hoping to get some more details on why my submission was denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiemcguigs (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to elaborate! The reason I declined it was mainly because it was not written in an encyclopedic matter.  For starters, you should directly back up your content with references.  Instead of making a section of them, use the ref tag as such: immediately after the statement it backs up (for example, if you say SongBooth was nominated for an award, find a reference that says that and use the ref tag immediately after the sentence).  Make sure to put at the end of the page so they show up.


 * Another reason is because of the way your article is written. Your history section should contain a summary of important, verifiable, notable events in SongBooth's history with third party references and you should chop out the "features" and "creation process" sections if you can't integrate them somehow into the history article, as they appear to promote SongBooth rather than encyclopedically state what SongBooth is about.  If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.  I'd be happy to help you understand how to get the article up to an acceptable status.  Jns4eva (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

From TECHNOCORP
Hi, can someone fix the TBose page so that it is useful to people in general? It is not meant to be an advertisement as this is not necessary. Thanks. Anthony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TECHNOCORP (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will not be surprised if companies have hired people to write their articles, because accurate trademark details can only come from companies. I am sure you are aware of this and the importance of having accurate information in Wikipedia.


 * However, I do believe that it is deceptive for companies to pretend that an "independent third party" is editing Wikipedia with their information or that Wikipedia does not think this is not happening with respect to maintaining the accuracy of its contents. I am sure Wikipedia has a policy to maintain the accuracy and validity of its content.  I am not sure how it does this with respect to companies.  Anyway, I will have to keep the user name to prevent misuse of the trademark.  Let me know how to proceed.  Thanks. TECHNOCORP (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't with the factual accuracy of the article, it's with the implied Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia ONLY accepts neutrally written articles, meaning both the good points and the bad points must be present and must be worded neutrally.  If your company is involved in a future scandal which impacts your business, would you be comfortable including it in your article?  If your company receives a prestigious award, would you be comfortable merely acknowledging it rather than gloating about it?  Personally, I doubt it.  That's what we mean when you have a Conflict of Interest: you cannot be neutral given your close proximity with the company.   Not only that, but everything has to be backed up by independent third party references, meaning you cannot include any original research or information not backed up by an independent source.  Because of this, no matter how relevant or important the information, it cannot be included until a reliable person outside the company writes about it (The New York Times for instance).


 * As far as other companies editing articles deceptively, that's none of our concern. Yes, it can happen but it's usually pretty easy to spot since it will violate the rules here at Wikipedia and is usually spotted pretty quickly.  As far as your username goes, it directly conflicts with the rules mentioned and has to be changed unfortunately, due to the policies that say you "may not promote a business" nor "you may not have a username that implies shared use" and if you choose to continue editing under it, you risk getting banned unfortunately.  If you'd like to prevent someone else from using it, you could always retire it and start anew under a different name.  Keep in mind, however, that you may not return to the username per our Clean Start rules.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  Thanks!  Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to all public conducts of a business to be accurately represented, good or bad. When a business operates under a registered trademark, it usually does its best to not mess up, after all, everything is public, as you are fully aware of.  Anyway, I see you mean the article is missing legitimate references.  In this case, why not say so instead of flagging it for immediate deletion.  This can be addressed to comply with the guideline you specified.  Let me put in the citations from legitimate sources, and then you can remove the flag for immediate deletion.  With respect to the name, I will need to keep the name to legally track all communications.  I will take your advice and not edit any pages with it.  Thanks, Anthony TECHNOCORP (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. However, there are several reasons I tagged it for Speedy Deletion.  The first is because of your Conflict of Interest, which isn't just obvious examples like the above but can range from small examples such as wording differently that are subconscious.  Several COI editors have been found out, even without divulging said information due to little tendencies they didn't realize they were doing.  The second is notability, which is the main reason I tagged it for CSD (which you can see on the article).  To qualify for an article on Wikipedia, you have to meet certain guidelines.  To prove notability, you have to have a significant amount of third party references, not just one or two.  Keep that in mind.  But ultimately, it will be up to an administrator to decide whether or not to keep your article.  My suggestion to you?  Let it go for now and take it to Articles for Creation.  That's a great place to create your article as no one can step in and delete it (aside from the rare instances where you out an editor or post personal information of course), you can work on your article in peace and when you're done, you can have an independent third party look it over for errors and send it onto mainspace.  Thanks Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Now this was really useful advice. It makes sense to have the article reviewed by a third party and have the third party publish it.  Thank you very much for taking the time to talk me through this.  You have been very constructive and utmost professional.  I truly appreciate this.  I have added the legal citation and the reference of first use.  Let me know what you think.  Also, I need to figure out how to go through the third party process.  It is probably a good process to establish for companies, after all, it is not my objective to do things improperly or to mislead.  This is something Wikipedia should formally establish as a process - a link for businesses operating under trademarks to go through.  Why I am updating Wikipedia after all these years?  It is because "popups" are misusing the trademarks of legitimate small companies with "guarantees" causing potential harm to unsuspecting consumers and the reputation of unsuspecting businesses.  It is not possible to go after every popup.  Thanks, Anthony TECHNOCORP (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem! Glad I could be of help.  Another thing I suggest is to read WP:NPOV and WP:References thoroughly, which will help you with your article.  The reference is a good start but everything you put into an article needs a reference (aside from obvious things covered under WP:BLUESKY).  One thing that unsettles me is your admission that you're here not to build an encyclopedia but to solidify company trademarks.  I understand that it must have been a hard process for you to go through but at the same time, Wikipedia is not a business directory.  I hope that doesn't affect your ability to productively edit, as I'm certain you could be a skilled and productive editor.  Thanks and if you need any more help, feel free to ask!  Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

stop harassing me
ive told my father and hes ready to take to higher level if you dont stop harassing mee — Preceding unsigned comment added by H+L Bagels (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Imma talk to lawyer and sue you and yeas this is a legal threat — Preceding unsigned comment added by H+L Bagels (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion I am a company
I am not a company. I own fluxradio.org and tried registering with the name fluxradio. I have been around since 2006 and make no money whatsoever off the site and never have done. It is free, I support the electronic frontier foundation and donate to other organisations and charitable causes.

Looks like you have the wrong idea about me. Contactfluxradio (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contactfluxradio (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While I admit I was wrong to assume you were promoting a company, you're missing the bigger issue: your user name is still promotional. While you may not be making any money off of the website, your user name still promotes it, which is in violation of Wikipedia's rules.  Please read the Username policy and tell me how your username does not violate that.  If you have any questions feel free to ask me, thanks.  Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have read those links provided by yourself. I see that my username is not permitted; as it is deemed promotional. I do not know what to say apart from I am flabberghasted. Although it is quite understandable in order to prevent spammers etc; maybe there should be a request policy put in place as I do want some sort of privacy protection on wikipedia.


 * Call it a contradiction, but I came here with the sole intention of talking about how fluxradio was started back in the days of IRC openprojects.net and that we do not stream music anymore, but try and focus on open source and meaningful things.


 * With these issues in mind; maybe it is better that I do not write an article about fluxradio as it could be deemed 'promoting'. Would it not be better in that case, that I write something up and submit it by email?


 * At least then, I won't be accused of promoting and just write an informative page for submission? Please do not misunderstand me; wikipedia does a great job and is a great source of information that is embraced. There is no intention on my behalf to mislead you or wikipedia whatsoever. What do you suggest I do? Regards, Reuben Contactfluxradio (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help! I appreciate both your honesty and your willingness to work within the rules.  As far as your planned article goes, you have what's known as a Conflict of Interest and it's highly discouraged that you write an article about yourself (see also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:PROUD).  This basically means that your close proximity to the subject makes it hard to impossible for you to remain neutral.  A COI doesn't always mean deleting bad information or including a bunch of Peacock words.  Rather, it can be as simple as including information you find relevant that others find to be irrelavant (such as noting your ties to charitable orginizations).


 * You are correct that creating the article will look promotional and could get you banned. Luckily, you are correct that there are ways around it.  There is a way to request an article to be created for people who have a COI (though at the moment I'm not sure where it is on Wikipeda.  I'll try to edit it in later).  However, if you would like to create the article yourself (which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia but if done properly isn't too bad), my suggestion is to head to Articles for Creation.  There, you can make a draft that no one can interfere with (aside from major concerns like copyright violations) and when you're all finished, you can submit it and an independent third party reviewer can glance it over for any violations or non-neutral content.  If it gets accepted, it goes to mainspace where everyone can see it.  If not, they'll tell you why and allow you to edit it further to correct it.


 * As far as your username goes, you have two options. The first is to retire it and start fresh.  This way, you don't have to worry about people taking the name or getting blocked (which could happen unfortunately) and you can start new under a fresh account and edit productively (which I'm pretty sure you can do).  The second is to request a change of username.   This is usually so you can keep your edit history, but given that your account is new, I'd suggest abandoning it and creating a new account.  If you need help or have any questions, feel free to ask!  Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

songbooth article
hi again! i can't seem to see the message you posted back about my article! but any help you can give me in either finding more unbiased language or references that will be accepted so i can get my article approved!

thanks!! Katiemcguigs (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Rock Valley College Studio Theatre
New to Wikipedia, not sure if I'm responding in the proper place - just trying to update the article: Articles for creation/Rock Valley College Studio Theatre. You had denied its creation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rock_Valley_College_Studio_Theatre.

I'm just trying to do something nice for the community by making this page... what needs to change to get it approved?

Much thanks! :) (Steido01 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC))


 * You certainly are in the right place and I'd be happy to help. I denied the page because of two reasons.  The first is because, glancing over your references, it appeared that you relied too heavily on first party references.  Most of your references should be from independent, third party sources as to both confirm the subject's notability as well as keep the article neutrally written.  The second is because of the list of plays you've written into the article.  Like I mentioned on the page, Wikipedia doesn't need a full list of plays put on by the theater, especially if you can't reference them from a third party source.  There are a few links on the page that will help you out further and if you need more help, The Teahouse is a great place to ask.  Thanks for your eagerness to contribute and your willingness to talk out changes in your article.  Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Harataonga and RnR Charters
Sorry, didn’t realize that, just decided on the spur of the moment to put the page up. I was looking for the correct spelling for Harataonga, and noticed on Wikipedia there was no info about the place. We have been going there for about 20 odd years boating and know the bay very well. We have a charter boat and do go there, but I was not thinking about the aspect of promotion, more that the info was coming from a source with knowledge of the place. I am happy for you to change the account details to my name ‘Stef Railey’ and the email to (Courtesy blanked). I can send you an email from that account if needed to confirm it’s validity. Let me know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RnR Charters Ltd (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I wasn't commenting on your article, rather, your name. As far as changing your username, I'm not a crat so I unfortunately can't do it.  You'll have to go to this page to change it.  As far as your article, that's perfectly acceptable but please understand that it needs to have both Notability as well as Verifiable Resources.  I understand you're very familiar with the place and I applaud you for being bold and doing it yourself and I hope you continue to do so.  However, keep in mind as well that you have to use resources to back up your information, as Wikipedia does not allow original research.  Feel free to ask if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to help.  Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Terry Wohlers' article help
Hello! I hope you are doing well! I recently revised the article, to have better formatting and be customized so that it sounds less like an add and more like an article. I was wondering if you could take a look over it for me so I can get it posted? Thanks again for your help. Tmontheismith (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Tmontheismith


 * I went to check it out and it looks like it got deleted for copyright violations. For future reference, you can create an article in your own words and put in referenced quotes, but never copy and paste article information no matter how relevant (in non-techie terms, you have to release what you write to the public in order for it to be allowed on Wikipedia).  If you remake it so that it's not a copyright violation, let me know and I'll be happy to check it out again.  Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)