User talk:Kcroes

Eo fr en (parler/diskuti/talk)  23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jim Nyamu (January 16)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jim Nyamu (January 19)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit when you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC) undefined

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Jim Nyamu
Hello, Kcroes! I'm Anon126. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Jim Nyamu. You can read it at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Anon 126  (talk - contribs) 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there
Jim Nyamu, enjoy. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 08:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jim Nyamu (March 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Nyamu concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Nyamu, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Nyamu


Hello Kcroes. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jim Nyamu".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

August 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked for directly editing Wikipedia without declaring that you are being paid to do so. This is against our WP:TOU. Apologies. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The additionally issue with Alpins method of astigmatism analysis was that it was not based on very good sources. In fact the only review of the topic is from 2003 by Alpins himself..
 * WRT PR work for Alpins you are saying you have not worked for them since the 1990s? Does that include their companies? Also a number of the references you used in the article is from your own "paper". Will need some more time to look at your case. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith. I work on conflict of interest issues here in WP, and on medical/health content.  You are editing here under your real name, and this is clearly you.  You do have a lot of experience doing ophthalmology-related paid writing.   You say that you didn't write the Alpins stuff for pay, but in Wikipedia your writing really comes across as promotional  - it seems that way to me, and to Doc James as well.   In some ways someone with your skill could be super helpful here if you would work with us to get better oriented to Wikipedia writing (which is different than any other kind - please take that seriously!).  But first we would really need to trust you.  This is a hard thing, as you are a paid writer outside of WP, and among all the medical specialties, we consistently find that ophthalmology is the most rife with doctors/practices/companies abusing Wikipedia to market themselves. I need to ask you again (sorry for this) - are you receiving, or do you expect to receive, any consideration for editing Wikipedia?  Please know that there is a place for paid editing here; you  just have to do some things differently.  (some people try to avoid disclosing because they think that will get them kicked out; it is only undisclosed paid editing that leads to blocks; paid editors who disclose and follow our policies and guidelines are welcome).  Sorry for the additional questioning.  Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To the Editors,

It just recently came to my notice that the page in Wikipedia on advancements on astigmatism treatment and analysis titled “Alpins Method” had been removed from public availability. I found this both disconcerting, disappointing and undermines the contributions this valuable analysis method has made to the area of cataract and refractive surgery.

The information provided by this page has been derived from twenty years of research and development from its first publication in 1993 in the Journal of Cataract and Refractive surgery, a peer reviewed publication by Elsevier, with more than 15 peer reviewed papers I have been first author for, published in leading ophthalmic journals to the most recent in March 2015 in the Journal of Refractive Surgery (JRS) published by Slack Inc.

There were contained in the Alpins Method entry more than 70 related references including written articles in the ophthalmic information magazines and other referenced sources by others. These sources which together with the valuable summary of the method and inventions in the main text is an invaluable resource for practising ophthalmologists/eye surgeons, optical scientists and engineers in the medical profession and refractive surgery device industry. There is also much interest from the public in general who suffer from astigmatism (more than 60%) as part of their refractive error when considering undergoing the surgical process of laser vision correction.

As an indication of the relevance and importance of developments I have innovated, an editorial in October 2014 in the JRS (see link: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266629328_JRS_Standard_for_Reporting_Astigmatism_Outcomes_of_Refractive_Surgery ) examined my Method in some detail, acknowledged it was the technique adopted as the ANSI standard for astigmatism treatment appraisal by refractive lasers by the FDA. This editorial in the JRS rated highly in 2014 by an impact factor (3.468) which is 7th out of 57 Ophthalmic peer reviewed journals, directed all authors who publish in this journal to employ the Alpins Method as the standard analysis technique for astigmatism in peer reviewed articles to be published. Naturally I employ these techniques in my own practice of ophthalmic surgery which requires some detail on my own practice website.

It is most perplexing to understand why such an informative and useful Wikipedia entry with an extensive and comprehensive scientific reference list, many sourced from the peer reviewed literature, could be considered commercial promotion when it is derived from the scientific contributions of one individual during an innovative career of clinical practice for longer than 20 years and still contributing. This is completely consistent with the ideals of Wikipedia, leading me to believe that there must have been a simple mistake made-the only way this could be rationally explained. Removal of the entry is damaging to the reputation of the science and advancement in care provided by the Alpins Method.

After your due reconsideration I would look forward to my entry being reposted. After this occurs I intend in coming weeks to update the entry with my recently published papers. I would also expect contributions to the page to be made by my colleagues, as the Method has been employed and referenced in many reaserch papers in the ophthalmic peer reviewed literature. I don't believe ophthalmologists in general are aware of these opportunities in supplementing Wikipedia entries that they have not had a initial or previous contribution.

Thank you in anticipation,

Yours Sincerely

Noel Alpins

Dr Noel Alpins

M.B., B.S., D.O (Melb), F.R.A.N.Z.C.O., F.R.A.C.S., F.R.C.Ophth. F.A.C.S. Medical Director NewVision Clinics Clinical Senior Lecturer Melbourne University Department Ophthalmology

Noel Alpins (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked this account based on assurances that Kcroes while not edit content pertaining to Alpins. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of this method
Does this method have any coverage in review articles? Note that this is different than peer reviewed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Doc James: There were a number of review articles cited in the original Alpins method entry that was deleted, and which, unfortunately, I have no copy. Lindstrom et al reviewed astigmatism analysis programs by a number of researchers, including Alpins, and determined that Alpins' approach was the most accurate. I'm a little befuddled, because peer-reviewed publications often publish review articles, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by review articles that aren't peer reviewed. There are numerous tabloids, newspapers, and magazines serving ophthalmology, which are not indexed and therefore aren't considered to be formal peer-reviewed publications. The original Alpins entry in Wikipedia included many of this type of article, which I equate with "review" articles, as they quote a number of experts, often with varying opinions. I actually haven't been working in this space for quite a while and will need some time to ramp up, but since the Alpins method became the JRS (Journal of Refractive Surgery) standard for astigmatism reporting, I'm sure that there are recent reviews I can find to support the idea of including the Alpins method in Wikipedia. Please give me a few weeks to work on this. It's very important to the field and the many patients who are receiving cataract and refractive surgical procedures based on the Alpins method. Thank you. Kcroes (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a review article--more of a book, really--on the surgical correction of astigmatism, at http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781556422201. Sorry to drag you into this decades long punching match between the "mainstream" and the Alpins method, when it is clear to all that the Alpins method is the hands-down winner. I am not a braggart; I am a scientist. Those who don't understand the Alpins method would save much time simply accepting the advantages, which are so apparent. It's the purity of mathematics. How can you beat the simple supremacy of mathematics in delineating the advantages and predictive aspects? If there is an error, you deduce a mathematical adjustment. It is not meant as an explanation, but only a recording device. All deviations lie in the technology; the Alpins method simply defines the technology, and points out areas for further refinement. Simply. No controversy. There should be no controversy. The jerks out there with vested interests in other planning and analysis approaches are the only ones who see a controversy. Those days are actually behind us, and the Alpins method is an accepted norm. And so it is...let it go. Set it free. Make it real in Wikipedia. I'll oversee the entry and prevent inappropriate changes. Thank you. (User:Kcroes added comment)
 * First of all yes review articles are typically all peer reviewed. But only a small number of peer reviewed articles are review articles.
 * Yes this 1990 article is a review . It was used to support "The advent of excimer laser technology (e.g., laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, or LASIK), however, introduced a conundrum between incisional and ablation techniques; specifically, should treatment be planned according to refractive cylinder values as introduced with laser refractive surgery, or corneal astigmatism parameters as had been customary with incisional surgery." Will look at it but need to order the paper from my library.
 * By the way Kcroes this comment "I am not a braggart; I am a scientist." makes it sound like you developed the Alpins method?
 * And that review is 25 years old now. Anything in the last 10 years that is a review? The textbook you mention is from 1994. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear James,

Over the weekend since we communicated last Friday, I further considered your request for review articles. I am writing with three included that came to mind that are published and independent in their appraisal. As well as a peer reviewed Journal editorial on the subject of astigmatism in 2001, I searched my files and have found two review type articles that appear as two chapters in ophthalmic texts that have discussed my method with some analysis and critique. The three links are to follow for your convenience:

http://www.jcrsjournal.org/article/S0886-3350(00)00826-9/fulltext http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781556422201 http://www.amazon.com/Irregular-Astigmatism-Diagnosis-Ming-Wang/dp/1556428391

As I last mentioned there is no "review" paper in the conventional sense that I am aware of in the literature, perhaps explained by the fact it is a competitive field with multiple solutions being under consideration. However with this in mind, Dr Doug Koch the Editor of the Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (JCRS) at the time of 2000, invited 6 authors to provide a vectorial analysis of 100 eyes of his own treated patients with refractive laser surgery using their own analysis technique. I was one of those six invited to submit a paper and these all together formed the January 2001 Special Issue of the Journal completely dedicated to Astigmatism Analysis. My contribution is the paper titled "Astigmatism Analysis by the Alpins method" which over the subsequent 10+ years has been preferentially employed by authors, gaining popularity from its merit as acknowledged by Prof Reinstein and Randleman in their October 2014 editorial in the other highly rated (JRS) refractive journal. I believe Dr Koch considered this practical exercise was the most equitable approach at the time, as he saw the task of obtaining an unbiased independent view of the whole subject too challenging to attempt, leaving the decision of which technique to follow to the readers, scientists, researchers and practitioners who had an interest in the subject by being free to publish after peer review with one of the 6 techniques to choose from. This January 2001 JCRS issue is the independent review in a peer-reviewed journal par excellence I would expect you are seeking. I have attached the editorial by Dr Koch for that January 2001 Astigmatism issue that discusses my technique and paper. You might note he describes my technique on page 1 of the journal that year "..remarkably useful and intuitive means of understanding the effects of surgery". His editorial is an excellent review of all 6 invited contributions to the (JCRS) Journal's Special Astigmatism Issue.

The second is a book edited by four very prominent and respected ophthalmic practitioners of their time all residing in the USA-Dr Gills, Martin Thornton and Sanders. The chapter (2nd) itself was authored by Drs. Greene and Lindstrom, Dr Lindstrom being one of the most respected and renowned ophthalmologists in the world today. The review of astigmatism analysis of the time (1994) forms part of the chapter examining astigmatic keratotomy and as you can see was a year after publication of my seminal 1993 paper on the subject. Of particular note when you read the section on vectorial analysis on page 17, see the comments relating to which techniques came up with the correct angular component, which formed part of their independent evaluation.

The third is a chapter in a book edited by Dr Ming Wang of Tennessee. This chapter 31 the concluding chapter reviews "Future Directions-Technological Development and Treating the Problem at it's Source" particularly related where discrepancies exist between the refraction and the corneal shape which in my method I have innovated and quantified as the vector ORA (ocular residual astigmatism) from my January 1997 paper. This also describes how to deal with this utilising Vector Planning by Alpins Method-both the phenomena of ORA and balanced topographical and refractive astigmatism treatment endorsed by Dr Wang, feature prominently with explanations in my Wikipedia page. Dr Wang's expresses his opinion on pages 280 and 283 that my technique described in chapter 29 but also reference 3 the 1997 vector planning paper "...critical in refractive surgical planning".

I believe the information provided above should support your decision in a substantive way to reinstate the Alpins Method pages in Wikipedia at an early time

Thank you for your consideration,

Noel A.

103.224.86.7 (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I give up!
I have a COI as defined in your COI policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest). I know Noel Alpins and understand the brilliance of the Alpins Method. That's why I asked to start the entry. Do people start entries who have no association or respect for the subject of the entry? I also started an entry for Jim Nyamu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Nyamu), whom I don't know. Look, I've been on the Earth here for more than 60 years. Are you saying that I can't make a Wikipedia entry related to any living person that I've ever known? Please restore my privileges. I'm a journalist, writer, and author. And for God's sake, the Alpins Method needs to be an entry in Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.Kcroes (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rereading the above (and versions deleted), I need to mention that I appreciate the COI complexities you must face, and that the nuances today are different than when I wrote this letter to an AMA journal (https://s3.amazonaws.com/cuttings/cuttingpdfs/360825/Ophthalmologists%20in%20the%20news%20-%20Keith%20Croes%20in%20Archives%20of%20Ophthalmology%201995.pdf). But my original intention came from a good place. And it's not clear to me even now what I should or could have done to comply, in the minutest regard, to your COI policy as it's now written. But I'm willing to learn, even at my advanced age. Again, thanks for your consideration.Kcroes (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also know that none of us has to believe in God. I believe that human consciousness is not necessarily confined to the dead-matter atomic structure of the brain and body. I call that God.

Request for help
To User:Jytdog: I've seen your work, and feel that you might be able to help me. Turns out I'm an unpaid advocate. I also advocate compassion to all humans, remain unpaid for that, and wonder whether Wikipedia would let me edit anything related to compassion, philanthropy, humanitarianism, etc. I'm half joking, of course, but only half. I really don't understand some of this, but would like to redeem my status as one who might contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you. Kcroes (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unblock
I have unblocked this account based on assurances that Kcroes while not edit content pertaining to Alpins or other topic related to his PR work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 23 October 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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Alpins method of astigmatism analysis listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alpins method of astigmatism analysis. Since you had some involvement with the Alpins method of astigmatism analysis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm stepping away
Look, I'm going to step away from Jim Nyamu for a while as I don't want any rancor between us. However I want to give you a heads-up that I'll ask some other editors to have a look at the article. The best place I can think of is WP:COIN unless you have a better suggestion. As you probably recall, it was brought up at the noticeboard in August 2015 by an administrator. - Bri (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. There can be no rancor around elephants. Let me know if you have questions. The COI flag on Nyamu's talk page relates to someone who calls him/herself Kamrama, FYI. Thanks. Kcroes (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Bri: In your COI post, I noticed that Jim Nyamu's name was misspelled; should be "Nyamu," not ‎"Naymu." Thanks.Kcroes (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AlpinsFig1.png


The file File:AlpinsFig1.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned graph."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AlpinsFig2.png


The file File:AlpinsFig2.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned graph."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AlpinsFig3.png


The file File:AlpinsFig3.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned graph."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AlpinsFig4A.png


The file File:AlpinsFig4A.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned graph."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AlpinsFig4B.png


The file File:AlpinsFig4B.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned graph."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AlpinsFig4C.png


The file File:AlpinsFig4C.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned graph."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Little Lambs (OVC) Care and Support


A tag has been placed on Little Lambs (OVC) Care and Support requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Poor sourcing
I reverted your edit at Jim Nyamu because it was using self-published sources, specifically LinkedIn and Blogspot. You must realize these are not independent reliable sources? Also, WP does not exist to publicize anything, and this has that appearance.

This is not the first time this has happened. Please stop adding promotional stuff from social media and blogs at this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)