User talk:Nittmann

Welcome!
Hello, Nittmann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Nominating pages for deletion
Hello, I noticed you have been nominating some pages for deletion under the proposed deletion process. Please note that proposed deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions; i.e., those that you believe that absolutely no one will oppose. The Articles for deletion process is in place to generate consensus as to whether an article should be deleted and should be used in any instance where you believe there may be any opposition to deletion.

You should never add a proposed deletion tag to an article that is currently nominated at AfD, as you did with Edward A. Shadid and Bayern, des samma mia. If you wish to express an opinion on deletion of those articles, you may do so at the AfD discussion page, which is linked in the banner that says "This article is being considered for deletion...". &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

thx for the heads-up, I will check for the AfD discussion next time
Mike (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * 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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! DES (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

history of our interaction
You posted a question on the AfC help desk in this edit. I responded in this edit. After that I did a review of the draft, which was brief. It was only after that that you posted to my talk page with this query, to which I made the response you objected to. Check the log timestamps. I truly did not intend to sound hostile, I am sorry it seemed that way to you. I have not been stalking you, I have been trying to follow up and assist. But if you would prefer to deal with other reviewers and editors at AfC, say so, and i will leave your submissions alone henceforth. OTOH if you would like my assistance I will do my best to give it.

You said on Wikiquette assistance that "I did not assume any reviewer would edit an article other than adding flags, nobody would." IN that you are quite mistaken. I often edit AfC drafts extensively, during or prior to a review, correcting formatting, adding additional sources I have found myself, and otherwise attempting to improve the article. For example, have a look at Articles for creation/Theodore Michael Siegel and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Internews Europe. Other reviewers do this also, although I do more than most, i think.

I did miss that there were, or seem to have been, multiple versions of the draft article and that was the difference you were concerned by. I am sorry about that. However I did ask you twice about the specific differences you saw -- had you responded I could probably have found the issue sooner.

I am truly sorry for any bad feeling I caused you in this exchange. I hope you can accept that I had no negative intent towards you at any time, nor did I feel defensive -- I was merely trying to spell out what i saw in detail. DES (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As User:EatsShootsAndLeaves points out, there continue to be two AFC submissions:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin_Matthew that was created by User:Jmhhacker (an account that does exist), and has been edited by User:Nittmann, and twice declined by reviwers.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin\_Matthew that was created by User:Nittmann and never reviewed.

The first has the correct name, perhaps the 2nd has the more correct content, although either will need a good deal of editing to be approved. If you want assistance in resolving this situation from me, let me know. If you want it from someone else, post on the AFC help page where you posted before and I'll leave it for another editor/reviewer to handle. DES (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally, however, when I see this text here, the User:Jmhhacker is in red, i.e. does not exist, hovering shows 'no exist', and going there brings up the creation page for new content.

I have two screen shots for it, will put them in here in a sec, just uploading, then I add the image tags.

Mike (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The redlink on User:Jmhhacker simply shows that he's never created a personal userpage. Go to his talkpage or look at his contributions, you'll see he exists.  Accounts cannot be deleted on Wikipedia, and all contributions are linked to an account  dangerous  panda  09:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, thank you for pointing that out, I always assumed everyone makes at least a small user page to satisfy the name space. Created on 8/28.

So it is my fault that I edited the wrong page, when I looked at the submissions that were declined (I expected my page to get there and did not see any notification). Which means everything was correct, I should not see notifications, and that there is a page with exactly the same name: I should have checked on that, since it is a person's name, and the odds are non-zero for someone else doing exactly the same thing.

I am holding off on this, let me check if Justin told someone to make a page for him and what the status is.

Great, everything worked right! I'll try with some other subject where there is no marketing work involved so the terminology of things will be different.

Mike (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mike (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As an addition: the subject of the "article" is not at all notable outside of the minor flash of the Youtube channel...if I had the time right now to decline the second AFC submission, I would. It's full of primary sources, speculation, WP:OR and WP:PUFFERY (please don't feel I'm trashing you - it's simply not written in the way an encyclopedia entry needs to be done). Plus, if you are involved with the subject, you should never be creating an encyclopedia article about them  dangerous  panda  09:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

well, eatsshootsandleaves, that this with the YouTube channel is a minor flash is your (uninformed) personal opinion: the entire media landscape is moving since Google bought YouTube, and really interesting things are happening: it seems that Google managed to encourage to augment quality and to bring content that is 'acceptable' beyond just the joke and hoax or sensational level. This is what happened here to a point where they say they don't want to become a discovery channel, but they are well on their way creating a mix between the Nye thing and discovery channel. Yep, anecdotal things need to be cleaned out, and yep, does not matter if he was a great financial adviser. He is one of the few who 'got it', the others will go the way all the joksters went: silent out after some time. The extent of this exercise is far greater than just one YouTube channel: it is a pioneering proof of concept. In all my consulting career I have always been 100% right on the money spotting early new developments in technology or technology users that will require retooling of technology. Why I got to this: I am a network/hw/sw consultant (and have nothing else to do right now than checking out this wikipedia thing), and I see the traffic shift in the net towards full feature lengths, away from minute clips: the Akamai bills clearly talk here about a trend that is taking place. You may think this is bad, but not at all: this only requires slightly different streaming setups to be satisfied, minor nudges in the technology and configurations that are in place, nothing new to be invented or designed. But a paradigm shift for which the networks (Internetworks) will need to be prepared. And this guy is one of the pioneers who help make this happen. Yes, there are certainly more of him, but: he is also found 'influential', people do listen to him, and he is doing footwork that will eventually make YouTube more of a 'tube'. The trend is that cable and TV will go away, broadcast media especially, and make room for the new players coming up while the old players are in denial. So while you only see "YouTube" and one channel, I see the significance of this trend, to make channels into online TV stations with acceptable programming and considerable revenue looking at the production cost: example: the heavy handed production crew of myth busters costs 1,000 to 10,000 times more (yes, 300,000+ per item) than a comparable production of a YouTube channel: no heavy equipment needed any more (cameras have stabilizers, quality is 'good enough' for digital rendering, actually way beyond what flat screens can do), the only thing is the experiment fund with everything that goes with it, if it is something that does experiments. No unionized crew with all the restrictions with who may do what and who needs to be hired because nobody may do 'that'. One little van max. Which shows that reviewers do need to either step back, or only review things they actually can talk about, right?

Mike (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll recommend you not provide personal insults like you have above through any of the rest of your Wikipedia "career". Admins, and people who've been around this project a long time understand the purpose of the encyclopedia - our role is to help editors to learn and follow the policies, including WP:PROMO, WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:NOTINHERITED (to name a few of hundreds).  Although I'm a journalist by trade - including having written internationally-printed tech columns - the point here is not that I actually do know what I'm talking about, instead I'm showing you that the individual does not meet Wikipedia requirements for inclusion at this time, based on the rules and policies as written.  As a matter of information for you: this guy is not a pioneer - people have been using youtube and social media to make money for longer than this guy has, so saying otherwise (without proof) is simply WP:PUFFERY.  Good luck.  dangerous  panda  10:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

please state the personal insult that is supposed to be there, since you are a journalist by trade you can pinpoint the _personal_ and _insult_ components right here:

I ask you also to cite ad verbatim where I affirm that this guy is the first making money on YouTube, or his channel

that you are a journalist by trade is great, however, having written tech columns does not make you a tech, as does writing down an interview with a surgeon does not make me a medic, or driving a ferrari does not make me a race car driver.

I cringe when I see tech journalists not getting 'the words right', I am a physicist btw, and see all these nonsense articles where words are, well, just words, the special order or case can be ignored... or worse, rearranged to sound bigger, better, more 'normal'.

Now, the next I should only write after you (do not) find the _personal_ _insult_ and the quotation where I say nobody else made money or he is the first to make money on YouTube.

I write it right here:

you are putting out your being a long time on Wikipedia, while in your same article (response) you pull stuff out of the air to make or contradict a point that has not been there at all (invented I wrote he is the first to make money on YouTube), to prove something is bad (invented _personal_ _insult_). Declaring a personal insult when facing something we don't agree with, well, what debating technique is that? I must have missed that :-D

To make it worse, you threaten then about my future 'career' on Wikipedia, which I take as the announcement that you will try to shoot down anything I ever do, and you tell all your friends to do the same. I thought this kind of stuff should have stopped with playing in the sandbox. Some obviously never grew up, so it seems. This is supposed to be a discussion, and a journalist by trade turns it into a mud match with threat, invented factoids, and bullying all complete.

You have not provided any substance, or anything new that was not written before in this thread, EatsShootsAndLeaves, and before we write something towards a thread we are supposed to - be knowledgeable about the subject (knowledgeable as in Expert, not as in Journalist) - not repeat the obvious or already said - be kind - stay on topic and do not digress by hijacking something written into something else and discuss that then.

... what did I miss....

I did say before, I won't do anything with that page anyways until I know who else is editing and find out what we are doing, or put our forces together. Of course that will then be someone else 'publishing' the page. So I guess, after all, Justin Matthews will never get a page, as will nobody who carries that name, as long as EatsShootsAndLeaves is in control, right ? I just make a pseudonym.

Mike (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For your information, this edit by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves is the only substantive edit not made by you to the Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin\_Matthew draft. The only substantive edit to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin_Matthew not by you is the initial edit by User:Jmhhacker. All other edits were reviewing, commenting or making technical, formatting changes. As far as i can tell, no other editor is currently making changes to either draft.
 * While I won't pass a definitive judgement as to the notability of Justin Matthews in wikipedia terms, much less the real-world value of his work, I will say that neither draft establishes notability at this moment, and that the edit by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves linked above, in my view significantly improves that draft. You can now decide what actions, if any you wish to take. DES (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Jmhhacker for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * 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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! — Duncan What I Do / What I Say 08:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Trent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Producer, Magician and Shake It Up! (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) 11:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Articles for creation/Richard Sears.
 * 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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  :- ) Don 02:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Monuments of National Importance in Andaman and Nicobar Islands for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Monuments of National Importance in Andaman and Nicobar Islands 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/List of Monuments of National Importance in Andaman and Nicobar Islands 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. naveenpf (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Monuments of National Importance in Chandigarh for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Monuments of National Importance in Chandigarh 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/List of Monuments of National Importance in Chandigarh 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. naveenpf (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Monuments of National Importance in Dadra and Nagar Haveli for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Monuments of National Importance in Dadra and Nagar Haveli 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/List of Monuments of National Importance in Dadra and Nagar Haveli 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. naveenpf (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Monuments of National Importance in Lakshadweep for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Monuments of National Importance in Lakshadweep 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/List of Monuments of National Importance in Lakshadweep 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. naveenpf (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)