User talk:Jwl220d

Be aware of WP:COI
Please read the policy at WP:COI regarding "conflict of interest", such as in writing an article about oneself. I see you have many references cited, but I am not 'up' on what qualifications for these are required. In general, it is the notability as seen by third-parties that counts most. Please do familiarize yourself with the policy in order to prepare your response to questions about having written the article yourself. Oh, and WP:BLP, because perhaps strangely, we can't know that 'you' are writing the article, and it may contain 'hidden' prejudicial texts by someone meaning ill. Shenme (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for you message. I read the information regarding autobiographies before posting my page. I have included many sources and I believe my career and work to be of significance. I hope that you would not delete this page as if you do, I will have my agent or lawyer repost this information. I have had a team of others who have written and edited this information before posting. I don't think there is anything biased about what has been written as the sources have all been backed by very credible third party articles from major publications. - Thank you.Jordanwaynelee (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have included more sources. I would appreciate it if you would remove the banners at the top of the page. If you read through the sources of articles, news, imdb.com and the emmy's, you will see that this information has been covered and written about over the past 10 years. Thank you. Jordanwaynelee (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

To Shenme Shenme (talk) - your comment does not make sense to me - You can't verify that it was written by me and it may contain pedjudicicial texts by someone meaning ill, yet you initially said that this is a conflict of interest for a writing about oneself. So which is it? Can it be written by oneself to deter prejudicial texts or can it not be written by oneself and carry the "conflict of interest" banner with it? I have sourced many articles and information regarding the accolades and achievements of my career. I would highly appreciate a response to what you are saying and I would also appreciate it if you would read all of the sources I have listed to verify the text here. Please remove the banner when you are done. Thank you Jordanwaynelee (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that even if verifiable, this article is fluffed up much more than is warranted, even if you may be notable. Wikipedia is not a web-host or place for free publicity, please see LinkedIn in for that. The policy of Neutral point of view requires that even if you do merit an article, we base it proportionally on coverage received in independent, reliable sources. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: see the golden rule. The majority of the references in this article are primary sources (e.g. links to your own artwork, website, or interviews), passing mentions, or don't mention you at all, requiring a lot of inferences to connect the dots, and notability is not inherited by working with famous people or notable projects. Your Emmy award was shared with about twenty other producers. The sources covering Annie Leibovitz don't seem to mention you at all, and many of the other awards appear minor/non-notable (however, congratulations to you). The sum coverage you've received in local papers is the best model for what you are actually known for (as opposed to simply what you've done): you shouldn't scour the internet to mention every project you've ever done. If all we can say about something is that you did it because you said so, then this article becomes indistinguishable from a resume and probably doesn't warrant inclusion. Because it can be difficult to write neutrally about one's self, you generally should not edit or expand this article, nor direct an agent to edit this (anyone who is paid for their contributions must disclose this). See Autobiography for more. In short, assuming your Emmy and local coverage merits an article, it should be no given no more depth than is given in secondary sources, or it will probably appear promotional. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove the fluff. I would go in an re-edit but it seems like you don't want me to edit down on my own behalf for the sake of making the article better and up to wikipedia's standards. I am not using this as free publicity. And if you look at my LinkedIn you will see I have left out PLENTY of other work from my resume that presumably does not belong here - please don't infer im using this as free publicity. I do not understand how you can say that the majority of these sources are primary sources, I have included outside sources that have validated my work and achievements. There not inferences to connect the dots. Most of my other work and accolades not included here have not been mentioned or references because of strict NDA and legal disclosures for all of my other work. I think the sources here connect the dots well. I have actually worked directly with every famous person I have listed in this article. Would you like me to call them or have them email you to verify? Just because I didn't do an interview online with them doesnt mean I did not directly work with them. As a creative director for my own agency and studio, press coverage doesnt always include my name. Rightfully so. This is standard in this line of work, but does not prohibit me from discussing work or showing work in which I was involved. If you would like more proof I can provide. In many circles within film, art and design - I am very well known for everything listed here, everything you removed and all of my other work with clients that have not been listed here. I can provide many testimonials, sources and evidence of all the work here and the work you have omitted from highly respected people in film, art and design who I have directly worked with. I have chosen to not directly edit this anymore so you would not add more banners or delete what has been posted. We agree on that. If I can not objectively re-edit and remove "fluff" then how will this page get edited? I would appreciate it if you would let me go in and re-edit the wording to be more objectionable - or if you would be so kind as to do it yourself so this will not be an autobiography. I do not want this to be promotional in any sense. For the sake of the other work that was removed, I will find additional relevant sources that validate my involvement to merit adding it back into the article. Thank you for your time to look over this and make sure this not fluff or promotional. I appreciate the feedback. Jordanwaynelee (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * It is complicated, all this is. That's why we ask for all possible due care in posting anything affecting people, especially living.
 * First, your user name alone gives one pause, as it purports to be the same person being written about. Thus, an clear (?) indication of WP:COI, thus my letting you know the edits will be questioned by others.
 * Second, the issue of who _you_ are is very much of concern. I believe there are mechanisms/procedures where you can provide proof of your identity as Mr.X to Wikipedia, by communicating with the Wikipedia administrative staff. (Not just any Wikipedia administrator, a title that editor's can have here) Until that's done, nobody can know whether you are Mr.X or even editing with good intentions with regard to Mr.X.
 * Third, banner? Oh, my, 2 other editors have made 5 edits applying an  banner, and making other edits. One set of edits looks like simply collapsing the line-by-line cites into a smaller form. Another edit objected to 'fluff' and deleted a bit?  You can review the individual edits by displaying the article, clicking on "View History" at top, then reviewing each edit by clicking on the 'Prev' link to the left of each history line.
 * Fourth, I expected much worse reviewing the article history. People are being 'nice' so far.  You'll have to expect some edits, very likely reducing the article's size.
 * Fifth, please know that this process is a hassle, because Wikipedia is trying to protect everyone's interests, and that is never easy for any of the participants. Knowing that this is frustrating, may I still caution you that "... I will have my agent or lawyer repost this information" or anything approaching threats or force will freak people here out, with no good result possible.  You must work through people's concerns to reach a good result.  And that'll take time.
 * Sixth, And patience. The banner is something that has to be removed by agreement with other concerned editors.  Please don't try to short-circuit the process of gaining approval for the article.
 * Seventh, I'm no expert in any of this, and can't give guidance. (I'm just a wikignome)  Perhaps you could add a note to the end of the talk page of one of the other editors you see in the history, asking them who/where they would suggest you go for guidance. Many other editors can better identify helpful resources.  Heck, there's always the Help_desk as one idea.  I thought of WP:RS when you mentioned sources above. It is a lot to read (sorry).


 * All of this hassle is due to long-term abuse of Wikipedia in the past. Lots and lots of abuse, from before 2004. The hassle is not directed at you, though you suffer because of it.  Please be as nice as you can manage.  Words count, and that's true in and out of the article. And heck, it's not like you're writing about Cold fusion, Global warming, or the East Sea.  Now that's true pain to get edits accepted!  Shenme (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I started writing before others commented, so my message may be somewhat redundant to what they have said. I did read through the sources, and many of them (including IMDb, which is not subject to meaningful editorial oversight) do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. As of, the first few sources are, in order:
 * A press release which doesn't say what you cite it for (it mentions you as one of eight "coordinating producers" of an Emmy Award-winning production, but it doesn't say that your work on that production was design work or that your design work significantly contributed ot that Emy Award, much less that the work on that production is what you're best known for). Press releases are not subject to editorial oversight and do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability; they also don't help establish that a person mentioned in a press release is notable.
 * Your own website, clearly not an independent source and not considered reliable for statements that could be considered self-aggrandizing ("award winning designs").
 * Some corporate website that doesn't mention you and thus cannot confirm that you collaborated with Leibowitz. Also not reliable by Wikipedia's standards.
 * IMDb. See above.
 * An interview with you, not independent coverage.
 * Discogs is of dubious reliability and doesn't write a single sentence of content about you. Name-drops like that are not the detailed coverage we need for an encyclopedia article, even if it were reliable.
 * A blog post (not particularly reliable due to the lack of editorial oversight) that seems to largely consist of quotes by you (not independent).
 * I think I'll stop here; the problems with the sources should be clear enough. There are some clearly reliable, independent sources like Vogue cited - but none of those I checked even mentioned your name. So the "needs additional citations for verification" banner was entirely justified (and I'd strongly advise you to not remove it from an article where you have a clear conflict of interest - instead, you can post at the article talk page and ask uninvolved editors to assess whether the article has been improved enough). The "is an autobiography" tag also clearly was warranted; by now some other editors have edited the page, but not to such a degree that the core isn't still your own writing.
 * Shenme already mentioned that people on Wikipedia react strongly to mentions of lawyers in a content dispute. The reason is that such a mention can easily construed as a legal threat - and those are prohibited by Wikipedia's policies and would see you (and your lawyer) blocked from editing. Of course your agent and/or lawyer are welcome to edit Wikipedia (if they comply with the disclosure requirements that are part of the Terms of Use), but "do as we say or we'll sue" is... not cool. (If you believe you have a valid legal claim against Wikipedia or individual editors, you of course are welcome to sue, too - but you cannot pursue or threaten legal means and edit Wikipedia at the same time. Either-or.)
 * Finally, I'd ask you to please provide proof of your identity via WP:OTRS (effectively by email to info-en@wikimedia.org). While your Wikipedia username indicates that you are Jordan Wayne Lee and personally I see no reason to doubt that, ultimately we don't know who registered that username - it's conceivable that some troll could register an account in your name and post stuff you wouldn't agree with, thereby damaging your reputation. Thus we must ask for proof of identity, or this account may be blocked from editing. See WP:Impersonation for details. I apologize for the bureaucratic hassle, but you'll appreciate that it's meant to protect you. Huon (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Huon (talk) Huon, thank you for your feedback. My intention here is to keep an accurate record of my public accomplishments. A lot of my accomplishments have not been public for reasons such as NDA's, client disclosure and/or lack of personal press on major projects. I agree that there may some additional things needed and I would be happy to locate them. However, there is some press from notable work that been exempt - either from major sites not showing the work or I haven't included. Allow me to elaborate - there is a lot of press that was generated from sites regarding my Emmy and the work I did from major sources such as Billy Corgan and the Smashing Pumpkins that has since gone from their site - they changed servers or the old site was defunct. I have no intention of removing the banner that is flagged, however, clarity on the matter would be greatly appreciated. I know I should not edit anymore for various COI reasons, but if I can provide more sources and evidence how do I do that without creating any questions.

I have many friends in the art and film industry who have Wikipedia articles about themselves with much less notoriety or sources, yet they have public pages about pseudo accomplishments. I think an Emmy is a highly warranted award the credits recognition and in my line of work, it's a highly recognized thing that I am known for. The source I cited with the award credit is the official Emmy site showing all the official winners. I would edit the article to remove my writing that makes it objectionable, but again, I don't want to infringe on the process here put in place. How can I mitigate this?

My mentioning of lawyers was in no way a legal statement - I said "I hope that you would not delete this oupage as if you do, I will have my agent or lawyer repost this information." - Meaning, I would have a third party who can represent me and verify this information to repost if you delete this on behalf that you feel I am engaging in too much conflict of interest. I have a publicist, co-workers, publishers, friends, and family who could all submit as well. I simply used the terms of lawyer and agent as more valid and prominent figures who can justify the credibility here. In no way is that a legal threat of any kind. Who can I ask to determine the article is improved enough to be valid? If a lawyer or agent edits, I will 100% ensure they disclose that information. My intention was to create this article in good faith and not be threatened with the delete from the work of myself and others to put up public and relevant information on myself.

I understand (now) that this is a process, and the credibility of Wikipedia is at stake for the validity of each article. I respect that. To provide more proof of myself would you like me to send you photos of my awards and work? Why are you asking to provide proof? I am more than happy to, but it seems like another loophole with zero guarantee that you would publish this article - the article in fact is not meant in malice for myself and is not in a tone that puts myself in a negative context. I know plenty of other people who created random usernames and posted their own wikipedia articles that went uncontested - if anything, the honesty in my username should be celebrated and not called into question, however I am more than willing to provide proof. Will you or other editors please review the text and make it less objectionable. I appreciate the feedback and want to provide accurate information. I am the only person who has collected links, articles, news and sources over the years - some of those more relevant articles are defunct, but that should not mitigate the credibility of my career and what people know me for today. Thank you very much for your response.Jordanwaynelee (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, Wikipedia is not a web host built to "keep an accurate record of my public accomplishments", assuming you are actually Jordan Lee. I'm going to assume you are not him, and tell you that Jordan Lee is not a notable individual at all by our standards. I would not waste your time on trying to save this article. Things like the awards he has gotten from the "Interactive Media Awards", a bogus site that sells awards and givesone to everyone who pays the application fee, point to how his CV has been largely inflated. There's a role in an Emmy award, yes but that is not enough. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This may be due to a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, at a basic level: Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable sources that are independent of the subject have reported about it. Newspapers and reputable magazines which are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy generally make good sources - if they cover the subject in some detail. By citing the sources for our content, we make sure that our readers can independently verify that our content is indeed accurate.
 * That's why the article in its current form is problematic: Of the seven sources I listed above, none simultaneously meets the criteria of reliability, independence and significant coverage. If you know of better sources, you are welcome to point them out at the article's talk page. Then the article will need to be heavily re-worked to summarize what those better sources report (it's generally a good idea to start with the sources, not to first write a text and then try to find sources that confirm it).
 * Having your agent or lawyer edit Wikipedia won't help with these issues in the way you imagine; they, like you or me or any other editor, would still need to provide reliable independent published sources that allow others to verify that the content they add or change is accurate. They, like your friends, family and acquaintances, would all be considered to have a conflict of interest; from Wikipedia's point of view it's best if content is created by people without any association with the subject (not least because such uninvolved editors do not have insider information and thus are not tempted to add information to Wikipedia that they know to be true but which others cannot verify).
 * It's possible that other people with "lesser" achievements have received more coverage in independent sources than you have. That may feel unfair, but since coverage by independent sources is Wikipedia's yardstick, it's possible that seemingly less successful or important people are considered "notable" on Wikipedia while seemingly more deserving people are not. One reason why writing about oneself is discouraged is that neutrally assessing one's own notability (the way Wikipedia uses the term) is difficult. On the other hand, it's also possible that there are articles on Wikipedia that we shouldn't have but that haven't been deleted yet - so "other stuff exists" generally is not a good rationale; each article must stand on its own merits.
 * The verifiability issues of the article are independent of the request for you to provide proof via WP:OTRS that you, User:Jordanwaynelee, are indeed the "real" Jordan Wayne Lee. We don't know who's the person behind the username, and we want to rule out the possibility that someone else - a troll, a personal enemy, someone with a twisted sense of humor - edits Wikipedia under your name in ways that might be damaging to your reputation. Whether or not you provide that proof will not affect the fate of the article one way or another. Whether you are the real Jordan Wayne Lee or someone else who just chose that username because they thought the username and the subject they want to write about should be the same, the article will be evaluated according to the same criteria. However, if you do not provide proof that you are the real Jordan Wayne Lee, your account may be blocked from editing to protect the real Jordan Wayne Lee from being impersonated on Wikipedia. If you prefer to resolve this issue without providing proof of identity via WP:OTRS (which is a non-public email-based system; the proof itself would not be published, just the fact that your identity was confirmed), you can instead request a change of username to one that doesn't imply you are a well-known public person. Huon (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Huon (talk) I understand your points here. If you would like to scale back the article to it's bare bones or delete it entirely, please do. In no way do I want to diminish the work and value of Wikipedia. However, the source listed for the emmyonline.com is very valid and what is used in other sources and I would encourage you and other editors to take a second look at that source. Other than that, I understand your concerns here. Feel free to edit or remove entirely. My best, Jordan Lee Jordanwaynelee (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we address the banners at the top. There has been multiple edits and I have changed my username per User:Huon request. I would like to get the banners addressed, however I do not want to edit the article. Please review? Thank you Jwl220d (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing your username. The banners will be removed when the issues with the article are addressed - they have not been yet. If you would like to request changes to the article, please use the template on the article's talk page, and an editor will get to you in due course. Please can you also disclose your conflict of interest on the article's talk page per WP:DISCLOSE. Thank you! -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 22:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jordan Wayne Lee for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jordan Wayne Lee 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/Jordan Wayne Lee 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Other Stuff Exists
I have a question about your statement above: "I have many friends in the art and film industry who have Wikipedia articles about themselves with much less notoriety or sources, yet they have public pages about pseudo accomplishments." Can you point out one, several, or all of these that you know of? Might be helpful. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Jwl220d (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)