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.
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 removed 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maureen Madden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Parker. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Credihealth 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. North America100005:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to send a quick thanks for all the work on The Gambia discussion. You are providing a textbook example for soliciting comments, engaging with different viewpoints, and keeping the move toward consensus progressive. I came to it because of the notice you posted on the Africa noticeboard and since then, even when we've disagreed, you have kept your eye consistently on the ball. Seriously, the next time I come across a RfC that has gone off the rails, I'm going to point them to this discussion as an example of someone clearly focused on achieving useful consensus for the project. Keep up the great editing. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@AbstractIllusions: Absolutely, your arguments make sense too. It makes no sense to dismiss them just because I disagree with them. I didn't mention it on that discussion because it is off topic but my personal belief is that not capitalizing is a sort of Euro-centric view. It's insensitive. But that is my personal view. Without a RS to back that up I wouldn't even dream of mentioning it there. As you said though, Wikipedia is not about what is right, it is about what is verifiable.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)18:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You will notice at the beginning, I was willing to change to "the Gambia" because of that early consensus I found. But that was before seeing the larger RfC that ended in a stalemate. I only want consistency. If the outcome is "the," I will be satisfied and go on editing.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)18:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying things about that article. I was disappointed to see it speedily deleted since the subject is notable and worth having an article about, but I understand your motivation. If you'd like to help in building the new article, I'd fully welcome that. Mortee (talk) 03:32, 16 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 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 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:
Too suggestive of an advertised business profile, sources are only announcements or notices (particularly, they're only trade publications, PR journals and similar, whatever the name may be) and notability cannot be inherited from others.
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:Aviv Hadar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
The Fast Company article is called "Rainn Wilson and “I’m With Coco’s” Aviv Hadar Sue Each Other Over Soul Ownership". That is WP:BLP2E in one sentence. Unless you are suggesting that all lawsuits are non-notable events. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)04:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The sections WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost and WP:Wikipedia is not advertising, because put aside the controversies, they would be relevant in the sense. I'll let another user know about this and they'll comment themselves soon. SwisterTwistertalk05:18, 19 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 Justlettersandnumbers 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:Gailen David 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! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. I think that may be a good call. Sorry about the Teahouse invitation, though – thats intended for new editors, as you surely know. There must be some sort of software glitch that failed to recognise that you'd already participated there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gaslighting". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 April 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:25, 27 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 Winged Blades of Godric 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:
Same as SwisterTwister said.
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:Aviv Hadar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
In response to your question under additional issues:
I orginally had EvergreenFir, Malerooster, Jm3 and the Anome included in this mediation, but removed them on second thought due to either: 1) how much they actually contributed in the amount of discussion to this topic OR 2) how long ago they were actually involved in this discussion. Narsil put in the most discussion on the Talk page, so he stayed by default. However, I can add any of the editors, if you wish. We still have 4 days left for Masem, or any of the others you wish to add, to agree to mediation before it automatically begins.
The only thing to note: If one of them decides to decline their invite to the mediation, then the mediation will be closed before it begins and we'll have to reopen another one. (And possibly wait another 7 more days before it begins). But, if you want any one of them to be included, I'll add them. T.H.Reesh (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ron Richards ASIO.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Janweh64 and Sfan00 IMG, I've added an infobox to George Ronald Richards to make use of this. I'll remove the deletion notice on that basis. It's also cropped from this image, which is claimed to be out of copyright, so it may be that this file can actually be used freely too; I don't know the complexities. You're both very welcome to change the article, including the image choice, any way you'd like. Mortee (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Gaslighting, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Thanks for uploading File:Ron Richards ASIO.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Janweh64. I noticed you have article nominated for peer review in the history section, which has as yet not gotten any comments. I am in the exact same boat; my nomination can be seen here. I was wondering if you'd like to trade reviews? No worries if you're too busy or not interested though. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Janweh64. I hate to be a pain but how is the copyedit and peer review coming along? I have intentions to nominate the article for FAC when they are done :). Freikorp (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Pecora, 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.
@Doug Coldwell: Yeah sure. Use the email system. I'll email back. I moved this because it is not directly related to the article. It is perfectly appropriate, just misplaced. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)22:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not a matter of article importance, but the bar for an FAC is particularly high: professional-standard prose. GAs only need to comply with the MOS :-). With experience, your confidence will increase. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis17:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Bonin Bough, 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 addition to Bonin Bough has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You can't just copy stuff out of his book, as you well know.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:25, 17 May 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 NewYorkActuary 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:
When I read that the subject had been inducted into the Advertising Federation's Hall of Fame, I was ready to believe that the draft had cleared the "notability hurdle". But further checking reveals that the subject has not been inducted into that Hall of Fame. Instead, the subject received a "Hall of Achievement" award, which I understand to be a sort of "young person's" award granted to about half a dozen persons each year. That isn't enough to establish notability, and I'm not seeing anything else in the draft that establishes it, either.
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:Bonin Bough 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 Justlettersandnumbers 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:
In the eight minutes between the last decline and resubmission, one word was changed. Paid editors need to take care not to waste the time of good-faith volunteers, and a waste of time is exactly what this is. Please either improve the draft or abandon it. Are you really suggesting that someone might be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia because he had an idea for a tweet?
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:Bonin Bough 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 Winged Blades of Godric 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.
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:Oncology Care Model 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! Winged Blades Godric05:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
And that is just articles published in the past 4 months. Go back to 2016 and the number of published journal articles increases to over a hundred.
No worries though. I am going to IAR and move it to mainspace myself. You are welcome to AfD. I really doubt this article will fail AfD. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)05:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Sheldon Schuster, 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.
Oncology Care Model, 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.
Don Reitz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
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.
If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. The community expects paid editors to declare that they are being paid whenever they seek to influence an article's content; this includes when writing drafts in draft space or user space. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place {{connected contributor (paid)}} at the top of the page
Thank you for reverting yourself. Nevertheless, both WP:WTRMT and Template:COI/doc clearly state that you cannot remove templates from articles where you have a COI. Please do not do so again. If you think they are unjustified then start a thread on the talk page. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, editing aggressively (removing the tags) in furtherance of your paid editing is not helpful to you, long term. If you read WP:CLUE which is very short, you will see that knowing what works, and what doesn't, is really essential here. I have been trying to help you understand that the community just barely tolerates paid editing, and the more and more disruption you cause, the less and less people will tolerate your paid editing. On the other hand, the more clue-ful you are - the stronger your editing and the better your behavior, the more successful you will be here.
Posting at ANI with dirty hands doesn't work for anybody. It is clue-less. Your hands are dirty here -- you edit warred to remove tags from a paid article. Your ANI posting on this matter will very likely bring a boomerang of some kind now, and is another step toward you being indefinitely blocked. That may even come now. Just self-destructive, Janweh. I am sorry you are doing this to yourself.
Your best move here is to withdrawn the ANI thread and apologize to everybody. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I did exactly what we discuss I should do when I am unfairly treated. I started a discussion at WP:COIN, IT WAS IGNORED. All it accomplished was give them a forum to accuse me of not declaring my COI. Really?!?!
My removal of maintenance tags are justified in my edit summaries. Their only explanation is pointing to a non-existent rule that a paid editor can not do this. It is pure WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)01:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried to tell you this before. I explained to you that your edits will be scrutinized and that you needed to expect that and not loose your cool when it happens, but rather you need to always remain calm and clean and never edit or argue aggressively to support your paid editing work.
You keep failing to understand the context here - namely:
your ability to edit WP is a privilege, not a right (the same is true for all of us)
the way you are using your editing privileges - namely to make money - is something the community only tolerates, and barely
if you suck up a lot of community time with disputes over your paid editing, the community will indef you per NOTHERE.
Whining about scrutiny is the completely wrong "head". You are going to get indefinitely blocked if you keep thinking that way and acting as though you the right to edit Wikipedia.
Please stop sucking up volunteer time - the lifeblood of this place - with disputes that are driven by your effort to make money via your edit privileges. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If you have not read this ANI case about another paid editor who tried to change "the rules" to support their paid editing work, you should. We indeffed that person. There is no tolerance for that behavior. That person also was all caught up in their picture of themselves as a "martyr" and "aggrieved" and didn't understand their context. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't care about anything else or any other article I have written. They can tag them all if they wish. I am simply really proud of this article. I worked on it for close to a month. I understand I don't own it but it certainly does not deserve the treatment it has gotten. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Janweh, I really strongly advise you to pay some attention to what Jytdog has said here. May I also suggest (but not insist) that you self-revert your edits here, here and here, as these could be seen as vindictive or simply disruptive in intent?
You write "Justlettersandnumbers has refused to discuss the matter or even voice his problems with the case". Where? Diff, please – I don't recall refusing to do anything. But just to be clear, I don't have to dance to your tune; if I don't reply immediately to something you've written, that may be because (a) I forgot or (b) I'm doing something else or (c) I think it's already clear what the answer is. Your Draft:Don Reitz page has numerous errors of grammar and/or spelling ("he found to be much more attune to his style", "Reitz began exploring other form of pottery", "at his residence Clarkdale, Arizona", "as a collaboration with several artist") and fact or basic understanding ("he was given emeritus status at the University of Wisconsin" (no, he retired), "he studied painting in the abstract expressionism movement", "it retained the marks made by the artist's hands" (nothing like what the source says)). It needs to be copy-edited by someone with a good knowledge of English, preferably a member of the WP:Guild of copy-editors, and also by someone with some expert knowledge of pottery (I don't claim to have anything more than a passing familiarity with the basic techniques and practices). The tags I placed on it were – with one exception – to attract the people who might be competent to do that work. The exception is of course the COI tag; that warns prospective editors that the article was not written to improve the encyclopaedia, but for other external motives such as personal gain, and that neither neutrality nor factual accuracy should be taken for granted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted my edits to your articles. But my edits were correct. I would advise you take them to heart. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk)11:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
