This is an archive of past discussions with User:Janweh64. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please review WP:TPG. User talk pages (like this one) are for discussing editor behavior. Article talk pages like Talk:Roger Gosden are for discussing article content. In light of that, this was inappropriate, and I have reverted it. Jytdog (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I apologize for my past transgression in anger. But please consider this statement by Justlettersandnumbers "the paid editor puts a mass of inappropriate content here, volunteer editors spend time and effort on making it suitable for the project – and the original author collects the fee." Like you said these types of comments about editor behavior are inappropriate on article talk page.
My voluntary/unpaid contributions are extensive. Please view my edit history. I did not just come here to simply make money. I know WP:AGF does not as a policy apply to COI edits but to assume that a paid "editor's edits and comments are [not] made in good faith" is a mischaracterization of my actions and intentions. It is my belief that Wikipedia's mission and my financial benefit are not mutually exclusive, while they can sometimes in conflict when NPOV is concerned. But POV conflict is part of Wikipedia editing. Please consider warning Justlettersandnumbers in the same manner, as they are also the same editor who placed tags without accompanying discussion.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)20:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, apropos, would you please unhide the list of those contributions on your user page? Thanks! You say your paid contributions are extensive, but that list isn't very long; is it complete? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
My unpaid edits are extensive. The list is absolutely complete. I will unhide it. But can I hide previous month when the time comes that the list grows to long. I was just trying to be organized.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Janweh64 thanks for your apology but there was no need; thanks for letting the reversion stand instead of making dramah. I cannot respond to your request at this time. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread that. I was thinking of "Since January 29, 2007, I have been employed as a private contractor by a variety of clients". Is that a typo, then? By the way, I assure you that my comment "the paid editor puts a mass of inappropriate content here" was specifically about the article on Roger Godsen, and specifically aimed at improving it. Which it still needs. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You are correct. It was a new contract. I only created the draft at 21:24, 15 February 2017. I have added one. When I try to create a talk page before a draft page a bot deletes it. But a declaration is always found on my user page. I will leave the rest for discussion on WP:ANI.
Hi! I don't think you should use {{request edit}} to submit a draft for review. There's a specific template, {{AFC submission}}, which will put your article(s) into the AfC queue and, sooner or later, attract the attention of an AfC reviewer. Both queues are backlogged, but I'm not up to date on which is more so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:I have tried it. Draft:Miles Doleac is stalled in AfC right now. The article is one you reviewed in the past but with an exorbitantly more improved reference section. I asked Winged Blades of Godric to take a second look, but he can't (understandably) make a call, perhaps because there are so many rejections in the past (of submissions by another editor).
I think there are only 700 or so articles in the queue at the moment, and several people working on it. I suggest that waiting patiently might perhaps look better than importuning for instant gratification, and possibly lead to better results in the end. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Do you agree with Swister's accessment in light of the comments I left you here. I believe his judgement is biased like a lot of editors because of paid editing. It is my firm belief that I will not receive any fair assessment this way. This is a second example of prejudice. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)01:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) 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. Orange Mike | Talk23:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Unconvincing because the sources are still considerably mere announcements, mentions, company quotes or profiles, none of it inherits them automatic inherited notability; the article is too closely mirrored as a company profile.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KDDL Limited and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Please stop making direct edits to articles where you are being paid. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run, charity-funded project, and paid editors are here on sufferance. Conflicted editors should request changes on the Talk page, not make them directly, because Wikipedia is NOT a promotional vehicle. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
First, every page has a talk page, it may be blank, but just click Talk and start the discussion. Second: No. I am an admin here, this is what admins are for. You are trying to make money form our charity, and I am here to make sure that does not impose a burden on our volunteer community. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
JzG It seems inappropriate to me that you would do this here when there is a WP:ANI already on this subject. You are an admin. Your intention may not be to threaten, but the effect is still the same. Believe it or not, I am currently frightened. Please use another avenue for addressing this issue more publicly where others may have a chance to comment. I am not comfortable dealing with you directly.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Your talk page is the correct place to warn you about your promotional editing. My intent is not to threaten, but to warn. And warnings form admins have an element of threat about them, by design, because if you continue to do things after admins warn you not to, then you may be blocked or banned. Making money from tromping things on Wikipedia is kind of evil, so it behoves you to heed such feedback. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
JzG I have been told NOT to use request edits and to instead submit to AfC which I have been doing since the ANI. I do not understand what instigated this formal warning but I believe it is not appropriate if your plan is to use this warning as justification for future action.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)14:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
being a top 20 finalist in Miss Universe Canada 2009 is not a credible claim to notability!
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Miss Tara and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nicholas Wooldridge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
I think the subject may, barely, pass WP:MUSICBIO#2. If you want to keep it and resubmit it please let Cyp know so they can fix the history (they deleted it at the same instant I was saving it so the history was deleted but not the current revision) If you do not want to keep it just tag it for deletion again or just leave it and I will tag it tomorrow. Jbh Talk20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(Posted at almost exactly the same time as the above post) You requested deletion of your article Draft:Miss Tara, but then Jbh said that it might survive the notability requirements after all. Do you still want it deleted? Κσυπ Cyp20:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jbhunley was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
All of the sources provided consist of simply passing mentions of the subject and some quotes. There is no substantive or significant coverage about him as is required by the General notability guidelines. Please see the comments I have made on your other article submissions about minimum sourcing requirements.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nicholas Wooldridge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Miss Tara, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Geronimo Trail Scenic Byway, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Go Grrrls, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Credihealth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Currently, the information and sources all show it's simply too soon because the company still needs funding and support, and is not yet established. SwisterTwistertalk00:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That was two years ago. The company no longer requires support. It currently operates in conjunction over 50 hospitals. I believe WP:GNG has also been satisfied. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)02:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The Historian (film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hello JanWeh64.. I would like for you to edit The Bahamas Visa Requirements page has well please... I will be traveling soon I would like to be updated on the Countries I'll be visiting. Thank you so much for Time and Patience ! Calvinck3 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Miles Doleac, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi Janweh64. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Not clear how this is notable? Wikipedia requires indepth coverage in reliable sources not mere mentions and primary sources
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Jet Set (TV show) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tara 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. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This is technically WP:CANVASSING so I have commented on my reasoning for passing the article through AFC however I do not feel it proper for me to !vote on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Jbh Talk04:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: I don't care what happens to the article. I only feel targeted. It feels like JzG is trying to build a case where none exists. Please see the discussion above with JzG and my request "oversight?" here.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)04:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:APPNOTE, this is acceptable use as you have been involved in this article. I did not ask you to vote one way or the other. I only did not like JzG's evaluation of the situation. You will notice the difference between your description and theirs.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)04:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The article is on my watch list because I have edited it. My rationale for nomination for deletion is as stated. This is no different from any of the thousands of other articles I have nominated for deletion over the past decade and more. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no problem, so nothing to solve. I also think it is disingenuous for someone trying to make money form a charity-funded volunteer-run project to cast aspersions on the honour of people with decades of volunteering behind them. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Ronald Richards 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. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Copyright problem: George Ronald Richards
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as George Ronald Richards, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/richards-george-ronald-ron-14450, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:George Ronald Richards with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:George Ronald Richards saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
I find this quite worrying. You have over 4000 edits. In how many other articles have you copied whole sentences directly, verbatim, from the source, as you did in this one? If there are others, it would be helpful if you would list them here. Please regard this as a priority, more important than other things you might be thinking of doing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same report. It shows that somewhere around 70% of the text you wrote was copied directly, sometimes whole sentences at a time, from the source (which is clearly marked as copyright, in case you're wondering). Normally something like this would be speedily deleted as a G12, which would indeed fix it, and easily. Or I could just have removed all but about one sentence of the body text. I chose the more laborious route because of the AfD, and to allow you to rewrite it if you wish. If you decide to do that, please (a) do it on this page, nowhere else; (b) do not copy over or paraphrase any of the existing text (because that defeats the point of the exercise); and (c) leave a note on the talk-page when you're done. But checking through your other edits for similar problems is more important than any of this, please make that your primary aim. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You are being ridiculous. If you delete " police officer and ", the phrase " one of seven children of" and ", bricklayer, and his wife " The problem is solved. You are trying to make a case where very little exists. You did not have to blank the whole page just that section. The rest of the report is attributions (citations), his official job titles, and the names of people.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)22:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You can't fix a copyright violation by changing a few words, as you did here: [2]. I am beginningto doubt your competence. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a temporary page created because the article at George Ronald Richards is suspected to be a copyright violation. Please work on a substitute article below. Admins: Please don't delete this page unless you are sure it is no longer needed.
Hi Janweh64. We haven't interacted much, but I have worked on COI issues for a pretty long while. I would like to talk with you a bit about how you are approaching things. Would you be willing to talk with me?Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Great. I have a skype account and could use that to call you (just talking, no video). I have sent you an email to initiate that, if you like. Talking would be better than writing here, for nuance etc. We can of course just write back and forth here if you like. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Credihealth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Janweh64,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
