User talk:Jbhunley

Real life has become busy again so I may not respond quickly to messages. -- Jbh^Talk 13:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User page Talk page Dashboard Scratchpad Templates Sandbox

Talk page Nice things people have left me Sanctions I am aware of
Please place any GS or DS notices on this page

There is a User:JBH that made 25 edits back in 2005. I have no relation to that user.

Click HERE to start a new section below.

Rick Alan Ross (consultant) bio

I am Rick Alan Ross with a bio on Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Alan_Ross I cannot post at the talk page of my biol due to the claim that I am not Rick Alan Ross and/or have been posting against policy from an IP address rather than an established Wikipeida account. I did once have an account, but lost the password and have changed my email since then. I have opened a Wikipedia account RickAlanRoss1952 I have also emailed the appropriate contacts within Wikipedia as suggested, but have received no reply. I would like to be able to post again at the Talk page of my bio. Please helpRickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@RickAlanRoss1952: Please see my earlier comment on your talk page [1] for your options. You can also post a request at Arbitration requests for clarification and amendment by clicking here. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. But no response, no action and no change regarding Talk page.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Once an issue is taken over by ArbCom there is nothing anyone else can or will do until their requirements are met. They are the final arbiters of matters they address. Your best bet if you are not getting any response through email is open a request at WP:ARCA. Several Arbs read that page daily and it is the proper place to address matters relating to their "rulings". Forgot to ping. Pinging @RickAlanRoss1952: and re-signing. Jbh^Talk 17:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Followed all your suggestions, but nothing is happening. What can be done?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@RickAlanRoss1952: As I have said above open a case at WP:ARCA by either going to the page or by clicking on this link. If you have tried my other suggestions and not gotten a response that is really the only option left to you. Jbh^Talk 20:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I followed instructions and filled out a form at the link you provided. I have followed all your suggestions.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@RickAlanRoss1952: It looks like Liz, an ArbCom clerk, has taken note of the request and decided that AARCA is not the place for it. She noted in the edit summary she would contact you on your talk page. She should be able to handle it from here. Jbh^Talk 20:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the request was not correctly formatted so that was one reason why it was removed. Also, I looked at the original restriction which advised RickAlanRoss1952 to contact the committee. I've alerted the committee on one of their email lists that they should be on the lookout for RAR's messages. They can take their time discussing requests like this so it might be a while before an inquirer hears back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 20:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have sent emails to the committee twice. Once today.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not verified at Wikipedia through my new user account and unblocked at the Talk page of my bio. I have again raised the issue of involuntary deprogramming there continuing our past conversation.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to remind you that I need your help on the lead. I know you are busy, but would appreciate your time to correct an error in fact and cut the lead to only the first paragraph as you previously suggested.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: I have told you at least three times that I was incorrect in my idea to cut the lead, why the information needs to stay, and that I would not be cutting the lead. Please drop it.

If there is an error of fact please let me know, on the article talk page, what it is along with a reliable source which documents the error and I will be happy to correct it. Jbh^Talk 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There are errors of fact and misleading edits being made and I am noting them on the article talk page. I realize that you are concerned with rules and proper procedure, which I am learning and using. But Cwobeel is editing to filter the facts and spin the bio as negatively as possible. The pattern of his edits and the tone of his comments at the article talk page demonstrate this. A few other editors that drop in to help him also seem to be doing the same. I think the the "not guilty" verdict was a glaring example. Cwobeel is doing quite a bit of editing and much of my comments on the article talk page are a direct response to his work.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think you are starting to do yourself more harm than good on the talk page. There was a group of good editors with diverse opinions who, over time and via normal Wikipedia editing, would have come up with an NPOV bio. You seem to have chased most of them away by dominating the talk page. Usually people work out differences in wording and sources - the "acquitted" issue is a good example. You see it as some attempt to make you look bad. Rather there was a source that was in conflict with others, as can happen, and it was worked out. People will take different views and you will likely see people who feel you are whitewashing your own bio take strong positions to insert that kind of material because they feel, rightly or wrongly the bio is unbalanced. Now, it seems to me, editors are just tired of your constant demands and poor understanding of the terms you through out. If you think something is cherrypicking or soapboxing or whatever say specifically why and then let other editors work it out. Do this with one issue at a time, do not respond to everything - let the others work it out - if you are constantly posting no one else will.

Cwobeel is a very good editor. You practically demanded that he use those Chinese sources and then are upset that he summarized what they said. There is probably a better way to summarize the issue but I doubt anyone is going to work on it right now because you are arguing the issue and not giving others a real chance. If they are like me they are staying out of it because, as I warned earlier, it is becoming harder to see NPOV vs reacting to your WP:CPUSH behavior. If you look at our book notability guideline WP:NBOOK you will see "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability". That informs editorial opinion about how significant a book is in a bio as well. If it is important in China then we need to say why it is and how it was presented/received to get over the presumption it is all but irrelevant for being self-published in English.

You often have good points but they are lost in the noise. Your BLP will never be finished because nothing on Wikipedia will ever be finished. You can turn it into a battleground and try to make it read the way you want but ultimately you will get banned. It might be a year from now but it will happen and, long term, that would be regrettable and a loss to the project.

You need to understand that you are so close to matters that you can not be neutral. Worse, many editors will see most of what you ask to be whitewashing, whether it is or not. Wikipedia is very concerned about following our BLP policy but there is a nearly as great antipathy for WP:COI editors who are here to simply advance their POV and you will likely start to see that backlash more and more if you are unable to moderate your demands in quantity and tempo. I also suggest that you learn to compromise on smaller issues rather than pressing for "victory". My view over the months interacting with you is that you want things your way period and will push and push until you get it. That pushes editors away and sets up an environment where editors are reacting to you as much as or more than they to the issue.

You should consider going and editing some other articles here and/or reading through some talk pages of controversial BLP's so you can see that editors work very hard to make BLP's NPOV. There are often POV pushers, both positive and negative, but they sooner or later get the material ironed out. The more active editors working on a page the more NPOV it becomes so by creating an environment others do not want to deal with you are making it more not less likely negative material will stay for longer because there are less eyes and less points of view to work out tricky issues. Maybe seeing how things work on other pages will make you more confident in the process. Take a look at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and its early talk page archives as an example of a very controversial BLP and how things were finally worked out.

One final note when "other editors drop in" and disagree with you and agree with the other editor it is what we call WP:CONSENSUS. If you have not read that do so, it is how we make all decisions on Wikipedia and is why I keep telling you to back off on the talk page. The more editors there are the better consensus is and the more likely the article will actually be NPOV. When there are only a few editors in conflict articles can become toxic as yours is well on the way to becoming.

Well, another final note, you must accept that the article is going to say things you neither like, agree with nor think are fair or even accurate. There are a lot of sources out there that have pretty negative things to say about you. I have bought several of the ones that have been discussed, including your book, to read when I have more time and to work on the article when I am more confident in being neutral. You also need to understand that all of those comments in the press you make do not really contribute to your notability, only what is written about you matters. That is why people are insisting you are notable as a "deprogrammer" (or whatever) not for being a "cult expert" (or whatever) It is very hard to see others write about your life because the world never sees us as we see ourselves. That is very hard for even private individuals to deal with and must be immeasurably worse for people with a large and controversial media footprint.

I have written much more than I intended and I am out of time to proofread it. I hope it makes some sense to you. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh^Talk 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are doing some very good work with Rick Ross, striking a good balance between respectful engagement and protecting our core values. Thank you for this. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Jbh^Talk 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Curious.

That's twice now you've suggested I should be topic banned along with EllenCT at AE. The other couple of editors who suggested that have their own biases and an old personal stake/grudge involved here. I don't recall if we've ever had an interaction, but you didn't give any specific reasons why I should be topic banned (you did cite something specific EllenCT did at AE, and point out that mediation would miss the point here, which I appreciate). Are there specific, concrete reasons you think I should be topic banned as well, or was that just an understandable "pox on both their houses" first glance reaction that's common when someone approaches a blown up debate for the first time? VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictorD7: I am basing my recommendation on the way you have handled the AE request. I really do understand your frustration there but it seems very hard for you to disengage from the conflict. I admit there is a bit of 'pox on both their houses' in my thinking - that situation is toxic and a determent to the project. I considered using this last post to also say you should not be banned but I could not in good conscience do so. (That post was intended more as a 'don't force mediation' than a reiteration of 'ban them both' and I apologize if it came off that way) What it really came down to was the way you handled AE including the walls and walls of text you posted there, it was a mirror of EllenCT's behavior - whose behavior certainly requires a topic ban. Maybe she brings out the worst in you but what it showed to me was that you are over engaged in the dispute. Posting more stuff after the "evidence" was hatted really pushed that home for me.

In addition the mud slung by some of the other editors stuck enough that I can not see you as a 'victim fighting the good fight against EllenCT's POV war'. I do recognize that some of that mud was flung by editors you might have long standing conflicts with. (That "recusal" was one of the pettiest actions I have seen by an "un-involved" admin.) Nonetheless it gave a pretty firm impression that this is not your first rodeo.

It comes down to how you handled the conflict, the disruption it caused and my not being convinced that because of the ... maybe tenacity it the right word... you have demonstrated that the conflict and disruption will not spin up again if you do not take a break from the topic for a bit. I would support you if you committed to a 60 day voluntary, logged, topic ban that shows you can let go and allows things to settle out. You should also stay far away from EllenCT on economic topics even if not related to American Politics. Personally I think the whole trickle-down thing is going to blow up in the near future considering how it is being pushed. I think you are overall a good and knowledgeable editor who is involved in toxic situation and needs a rest from it before it spins further out of control.

In short I feel that there is enough blame to go around and untangling the precise rights and wrongs is a) far beyond AE and b) would cover neither of you in glory and would lead to the same result. I hope that answered your question. If you think my reasoning is flawed or you think this might help you, you are welcome to link this post at AE. Jbh^Talk 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. For the record that final evidence was posted before I knew the section had been hatted, though I did request later that it be reinstated since I was replying to false, last minute accusations (even that last post didn't address all of them, since I didn't get to see all the new accusations thrown at me until after the hatting). I was reluctant to post the "walls of text" but thought it necessary to thoroughly refute the completely false sourcing/content claims EllenCT was making after they seemed to be gaining traction in the admin response. Another uninvolved editor later admitted to having been "lulled" (his word) into buying much of EllenCT's narrative at first glance, before striking his earlier comments and saying that a more careful reading of the situation shows my sources are sound and she's the one engaging in POV editing. A responding admin similarly struck his earlier comments to agree with this editor, thanking him for his patient reading. These revisions came after I posted my lengthy rebuttal, and presumably would not have occurred if I hadn't. So the "walls of text" were a mixed bag, making a positive difference with some respondents but maybe being tldr for others. I figure it's better to err on the side of correcting the record. My posting there only mirrored EllenCT's in length, not substance or accuracy.

I responded similarly to very dated, off topic, personal cheap shots taken by one of those aforementioned editors whose POV pushing clashed with me and other editors last year (EllenCT isn't the only tendentious editor on Wikipedia). In retrospect maybe I should have ignored those or been more concise, as they may have partly been attempts to bait me, but at the time I thought it best to contrast his vague assertions with specific examples highlighting the nature of our past involvement. Regardless, I don't think verbosity in an AE in reaction to baseless accusations is a real conduct violation, much less one warranting as draconian a sanction as a topic ban (on an unrelated topic to boot).

On the current issues, I haven't been the source of the toxicity you describe, and my involvement has introduced information and clarity over time. I don't think disagreeing with EllenCT should warrant a topic ban either. Without my long term involvement the odds are that either EllenCT's POV pushing would have run roughshod over Wikipedia, resulting in less overt discord but a lower quality encyclopedia that makes a mockery of its own stated core policies, or there would have been less informed push back at some point and an even more toxic environment. Now enough editors have become involved and educated that strong consensuses have formed against what EllenCT is trying to do. It's not so much a toxic topic as it is a toxic editor. Since she stopped editing the article or posting on the talk page things have been largely civil and quiet. At this point I see no need for action against anyone. I mostly endorse the status quo, so I'm not planning on doing much if any more editing in the topic areas (especially tax progressivity), if that puts your mind at ease, and if EllenCT resumes her misbehavior (e.g. edit warring) I'll be happy to let someone else report it so people aren't tricked into seeing this as a two editor quarrel. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Arbcom has repeatedly adopted the principle that undocumented aspersions and personal attacks on other editors will not be tolerated on WP, VictorD7 brief history on this page is sufficient evidence to support a TBAN or site ban. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Except between the two of us I'm the one who's documented my descriptions. I also didn't mention your name here. VictorD7 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @VictorD7: I have clairified my comment at AE to better reflect what I explained here. I do not know that it will make a difference one way or the other. As I explained I can not bring myself to advocate against a topic ban for you but I feel less strongly about it than I do EllenCT's. Jbh^Talk 00:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification. VictorD7 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you all are going to argue please take it elsewhere. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Colasanto

"Euromaiden" aside, can you help me expand the intro to the above topic? I.e. summarize that article concisely? I just need one paragraph intro; that's all. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Be glad to. I took a swipe at it here. Jbh^Talk 00:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Allow fifth paragraph of lede?

I invite you to the latest discussion about ledes in general. --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

redirection of The News from Nowhere Fellowship Symphony

Wow, that was quick - I've only just started writing the page!! A previous reviewer left some very helpful advice re. what needed to be added to make it comply whereas you've just deleted the initial content within the first few hours - is that really how this is supposed to work? I am confident that when the page is complete with all reference it will certainly comply with all Wiki guidelines - so not sure what to do next. I'm guessing I now work on the page without saving and, then when all is complete, finally hit save - seems really risky. You can tell I'm new to this, but I can't see another way of starting a page and saving as you go along without it becoming subject to patrolling before it's properly finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icmus (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Icmus: Yes, most articles are reviewed within a couple of hours if there are people activly reviewing. There are a couple of things you can do to make sure it is reviewed only after it is finished. One is to go through Articles for creation the other is to use the draft name space. I have moved the article into draft space for you. See Draft:The News from Nowhere Fellowship Symphony.

Please be aware that all articles must pass our notability criteria ie WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM, WP:NSONG. I could not find anything in my brief searches to show that the subject would pass those criteria and on closer inspection I see the name I redirected to was not the composer.

If I can be of any help please feel free to ask. Cheers. PS Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

jammes jamba castro - proposed deletion

hey Jb,

thanks for the heads up. I have added some references to the article you mentioned. I hadn't realized that there were no references.

Jessica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Freakishlyauthentic: Hi, I looked through some of the citations you recently put in the article and a large number of them are not what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Likely one of them will be good enough to remove the {{blpprod}} but I am concerned that the article subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Specifically we require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You should read the general notability criteria and the criteria for music biographies to see what the requirements are.

Also, please try to use an encyclopedic tone when writing the article rather than a promotional or conversational tone, see Beatles. I will keep the article on my watch list and, as I have time, look at the references if someone else does not get to it. Thank you for your contribution and welcome to Wikipedia! Jbh^Talk 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp.

@Jbhunley: hey there Jb. You are right. im new at this and english is not my first language. in regards to reliable sources, i am confused as to what they should be. Did i code them in incorrectly? I love Wikipedia and contributing to it has been a lifelong dream. Would you help me write it better? Any suggestions on how i can make the text more like the Beatles entry? I have to say that the Beatles entry is probably one of the best i have ever seen. Meanwhile i will keep adding more citations and hopefully one day i can make my level go up more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs)

@Freakishlyauthentic: I started going through the article. There are really no reliable sources discussing the subject. Just citing things to credits, blogs and press releases is not acceptable. I will do some searched later today to see of I can find something on this person but even if a single reliable source can be found to stop the BLPPROD I think it will likely be nominated for WP:AFD because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Considering the lack of material cited on this subject I must ask where you are getting your information from? Jbh^Talk 14:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp.

@Jbhunley: Well, i am familiar with this producer's work and i own quite a bit of the records he has produced besides finding them online. I also speak portuguese and there are quite a bit of online articles about him in that language as well. have you done a search for his name? - you will find plenty of articles. Also i forgot to mention that i translated this producers page from portuguese. Did i do it right? He already exists in portuguese - under "jamba (produtor)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs)

@Freakishlyauthentic: Different Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria. Without WP:RS there can be no article on en.Wikipedia. We do not require that the sources be in English however they must meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. Also, now for the third time sign your talk page posts. Not doing so is considered disruptive and failing to do so after being asked is also rather rude. You also need to indent your comments. Please take a quick look at this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Thank you. PS - There is no need to ping me on my own talk page, editors are automatically notified of posts on their talk page. Also {{ping}} will not send a notification unless you sign your post. Jbh^Talk 14:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:Sorry! LOL! I am still learning - is this good? do you mean not write "ping" - what do i write? i never talk to nobody before. how do i sign - i think i created a signature. can you show me how?Jsousa is this how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs)

@Freakishlyauthentic: You can just type on the page. {{ping}} is used to send a notification to an editor rather than depending on them checking the page on their watch list but the owner of a User Talk page gets pinged automatically when a message is left on their page. To sign type four ~ (~~~~) at then end of your post just like I said above. Jbh^Talk 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fereydoun Ala

Comments regarding best practice; thank you for these, however I am a bit puzzled as there are citations and links to other wikipedia articles... KKedit (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@KKedit: The problem is the article has a huge amount of detail about this person but, of the three references I can access, the only thing that relates to him is a statement in Enclclopedia Itanica that says "The project was initiated and founded by Dr. Fereydoun Ala and established by a parliamentary act". The link to the trust does not mention him and the other link is a nice biography of his father.

Where did you get all of the information you put in the article? It had to come from somewhere. You need to put those references in and cite where you got each bit of information. Otherwise, since this is a biography of a living person it is likely to be stubbed until references can be found. Jbh^Talk 11:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Max F. Perutz Laboratories

Dear JBhunley,

thank you for your edits to the Max F. Perutz Laboratories Wikipedia page. The User:MFPL Comms is the communications department of MFPL. So we have added the disclosure message to our user account as you asked. Best MFPL Comms — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFPL Comms (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MFPL Comms: Thank you for adding the disclosure. You should read all of our policies on conflict of interest, particularly the part about limiting your edits to the article talk page. Please note that multiple user accounts and accounts named for business entities are prohibited on Wikipedia per the Wikipedia:Username policy. You should request a change of user name at Wikipedia:Changing username or the account will be blocked from editing. Each individual who edits needs to have their own account and each of those accounts must disclose their affiliation per our terms of use. Thank you for your understanding. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Smith's pharmacy winter haven, fl

Hi, you have been too hasty nominating Smith's pharmacy winter haven, fl for speedy deletion. 1 minute after creation is not enough time. Give this sort of thing at least an hour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry. I thought I was working from the back of the queue - I did not check the time. Jbh^Talk 12:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: There has been no further editing by the editor who created this article and it is the only edit by the user. I have re-tagged it since it is still a CSD-A7. Jbh^Talk 13:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thunderation (band)

What exactly does an artist, band, or musical act need to achieve to be 'significant' according to the standards of wikipedia in general and this admin in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel5981 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel5981: please see Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the notability criteria for bands. In general a subject needs multiple, non-trivial, articles/coverage in independent, third party reliable sources, not Facebook, not blogs - nothing with user contributed content - and not press releases or PR material but sources with independent editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Also, I am not an admin I nominated the article for deletion, the admin who deleted the article was Bbb23. You might consider going through the Articles for Creation process and reading this page on creating your first article. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Jbh^Talk 13:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And to whom falls the responsibility of checking these articles. Do I need to provide those out of my own interest, or does the admin perform a fact-check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel5981 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel5981: Admins have no special powers with respect to content. If the article is created through AFC as I recommend above, an AFC reviewer will check the sources. If it is created directly in main space a new page reviewer will check it. In that case if you have not provided sufficient reliable sources to meet notability requirement and the reviewer can not find any good indication of passing notability on a, probably cursory, search the article will likely be tagged for deletion. Remember no blogs, social media, sales sites, fanzines, PR material, links to recordings etc can be used to demonstrate notability. Only independent, third party reliable sources with significant coverage. not tour date listings or blurbs, at least a couple of paragraphs discussing the subject. Carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (music) and all of the blue links I have provided. They go into depth about each subject and what each term mean on Wikipedia.

Also you must remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. I have mentioned this to you before and a reminder exists at the bottom of the edit window. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages to see how to properly indent talk page threads. Jbh^Talk 02:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: Paid/COI Notice

Hi, I got your message saying that you suspect I have financial ties to Yellowstone Capital. I am not an employee of the company, nor do I have any financial interest in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APetteys (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@APetteys: That does not fully answer the Paid/COI inquiry. Do you receive any direct or indirect compensation for your edits to those or any other article. For example are you being paid as a freelancer or as an PR person or do you work for an agency to make edits? PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 13:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not. APetteys (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@APetteys: then please read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and the general notability guidelines as well as the specific notability guidelines for companies and organizations because your articles are indistinguishable from advertisements and public relations material for the subjects. Continued creation of such articles may result in a suspension of Wikipedia editing privileges for using Wikipedia for promotion and not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh^Talk 13:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What Strange Stars

hi. New to Wikipedia here and I guess I am kind of confused. I typed up the article for what strange stars that I think you deleted. im confused on how it's not notable enough for it's own article when other pieces of Avram Davidson's work apparently are. his collection or all the seas with oysters, the link right above strange stars on his page, does have it's own. im confused how one is notable and the other not. I have quite the old sci fi library and have found multiple authors who have mostly complete links but one or too stubs and I thought I would help complete there pages. Avram Davidson, CL Moore, John Brunner etc. I guess I don't understand perfectly, should I not expand the stubs? also I would not at all be surprised if I messed up citation, but im also confused how the book the article summarizes does not count as a primary source for a summary. Id love to help expand on these author's pages, so id really appreciate some direction or feedback on what I should do, Thanks Dillon Kreiser 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKreiser (talk • contribs)

@DKreiser: What I did, as I noted, was WP:REDIRECT the book's article to the author's page. For a book to meet our notability criteria it needs to have been have a minimum of two independent and significant reviews in reliable sources. Helping expand stubs is a great thing to do and the most important thing is to find sources. Just because an article exists on another topic does not mean it should exist. Every article must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I linked the most relevant ones on your talk page.

If you can find some sources for the article go ahead and undo the redirect and add them. If you do not know how to let me know and I will do it for you. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia! Jbh^Talk 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC) PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.

Hello again,

The problem with articles discuss the book lies with the guidelines. Like most of the Great Sci Fi writers of his time, his stories were published in Pulp Magazines. After a story was published, other authors would write in to discuss them. But the guidelines say you cant use a source that was used to publish the material. Even if I can get a hold of backlogs of the magazine of Science fiction and fantasy, they wouldn't count. But any one who would want to discuss his work would have done so there. But I believe he should qualify for the "5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" exception. few men are as lauded n the genre. He even became the editor for magazine of Science fiction and fantasy. I can try to get more sources, but since the article is chiefly a summary, and I could not find anywhere else on the internet that even listed the stories in the collection, Shouldn't it stand on it's own for the prosperity of the authors work?

Thank you for helping, I'm afraid I don't no how to reverse a redirect or even where I can edit the article now that it is moved, so if you could help me find it I will try to find more sources for it. in the mean time I asked DEsiegal to weigh in on if Avram Davidson is worthy of the 5th notoriety standard, he is on the Sci Fi project, has 10 years of editing history, and works at the teahouse to help nubes like myself. I figured he could give me a definitive answer. because if Davidson and a few others are "Historically Notable" I have a lot of work to do to help give their work a place here.

Thanks Again, I'm Learning :)Dillon Kreiser 16:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKreiser (talk • contribs)

@DKreiser: I have moved the article into draft space. You can edit it at Draft:What Strange Stars and Skies. Again Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Also, you do not need to start a separate section each time you comment on my talk page, just indent as shown it the guide I linked for you previously. Remember, everything on Wikipedia comes down to having reliable sources - they do not need to be online so long as they are properly cited so they can be located in a library. Jbh^Talk 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Msafiri Zawose

The article references to BBC news and an article from The Citizen ( a Tanzanian ) newspaper, apart from music festivals in Tanzania and World of Music, Arts and Dance which is an international arts festival. I am unsure as to why these sources are considered unreliable. Could you please clarify as to what is considered a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irin.simon (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Irin.simon: The BBC article simply states he played at a festival. The article in The Citizen looks OK at first glance but it requires more than one article to pass the notability criteria. This discussion should be taking place either at Talk:Msafiri Zawose or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Msafiri Zawose to get input from other editors. I have both on my watch list and you can also {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from those pages.

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Also, please not that {{ping}} will not send a notification without a proper signature. Jbh^Talk 18:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Lack of References on Page

Hi, my page Sommer Nectarhoff was recently marked for deletion for lack of references. I have added more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerlier (talk • contribs) 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Writerlier: Thanks for working to improve the article. In order for a WP:BLPPROD to be removed there must be a citation to a reliable source. Links to blogs, social media or sources published bu the subject or their publisher are not sufficient. A biography of a living person may not exist on Wikipedia without such reliable sources. Also, please note that even if one or two sources are provided it is still possible the article will be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD if it can not be shown to pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or the specific notability criteria for authors.

If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. Also, Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Abraham Vosgueritchian

This is a geniune unbiase page worthy of being posted ! With direct links and articles as refrences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.232.101.55 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.232.101.55 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The page will be reviewed by an administrator to see if they concur with the speedy deletion recommendation. If they agree it will be deleted. If they disagree they will remove the tag. However, unless there is some evidence the topic meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines it will likely be nominated for a more extensive deletion discussion at WP:AFD. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot highlight the importance of this article and the topic in the Lebanese community, I followed all necessary steps I beg you take it into consideration and help me fix it up rather than tagging it to be deleted! please verify the content through the references , If the mere fact that its an autobiography bums you out I can have someone else write it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abra1995 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abra1995: I have answered you here, at the article talk page and on your talk page. That answer will not change no matter how many times you post on my talk page. I have nominated the article, now an admin will decide if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If it does not it will likely be nominated for deletion at AfD. The only way to avoid this is to provide reliable sources to show how the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you follow the blue links I have provided in my other answers you can see the text of the policies. If you wish to discuss this further please do so at the article talk page as I requested earlier.

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Also, please note that editing as multiple IP addresses as it seems you have been doing, as well as with your account is considered abuse of multiple accounts. Please edit using only your account. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 22:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Audiosplitter deletion

Thanks for the note. I've contested the deletion on the talk page, but won't comment further and will abide by whatever decision is made. Xeno of Citium (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kethrus. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, PBtisk, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unintentional. Sorted. --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kethrus: not a problem. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Blood & Glory (Film) - tagged for deletion

Hi JB, thank you for your correspondence.

I'd like your assistance if you do don't mind, I would like my article 'Blood & Glory (Film)' to remain on wikipedia for referencing, and I am the marketing manager of the film.

You mention that it reads a bit too much like a publicity article, however I re-wrote the article myself from a neutral standpoint as much as I can tell - im not promoting the film or telling anyone to go watch it - it is merely factual and synopsis.

Can you please give me further guidelines as to how it is contravening the rules so that I can amend it according to how it needs to be?

Thank you and kindest regards.

Mike Savage

Mikesavage86 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mikesavage86: Please note that Wikipedia is not for promotional use. I do not see adequate coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject meets the general notability guidelines or the notability criteria for films - without significant coverage an article simply is not permitted. Also please note that our terms of use require that you declare your paid-editor status on your user page, the article talk page and on each edit you make. You should use {{paid}} for your user page and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for the article talk page. Please see WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY for more information. You should limit your contributions to the article talk page - supplying sources or making edit requests per WP:COI.

I will keep the article on my watch list or you can contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Please click through and read the blue links, they explain matters in more detail. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 18:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Programmatic media ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Josescheuren

Hi, could you please explain what we did wrong? We do not want our page to be eliminated. User talk:Josescheuren From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut/paste from editors talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Contents [hide] 1 October 2015 2 Recent edit to WITS Academy 3 Josescheuren, you are invited to the Teahouse! 4 Speedy deletion nomination of Cinemat Inc October 2015[edit source] Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to WITS Academy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG. ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. For help, take a look at the introduction. The following is the log entry regarding this message: WITS Academy was changed by Josescheuren (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876745 on 2015-10-20T11:38:58+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Recent edit to WITS Academy[edit source] Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, WITS Academy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Josescheuren, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit source] Teahouse logo Hi Josescheuren! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Cinemat Inc[edit source] Hello Josescheuren, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Cinemat Inc for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JbhTalk 18:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josescheuren (talk • contribs)

@Josescheuren: from what I can see in my logs the article Cinemat Inc was deleted because the article violated Wikipedia's policies on promotion and advertising and made no claim of notability. All articles must pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and companies must pass the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please read those guidelines before attempting to recreate the article. Also, please read our policy on conflict of interest and WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to speedily rename:

• Category:1st century Physicians to Category:1st-century physicians Hugo999 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hugo999: I have no objection. I did not even think of '-' vs ' ' when I created it. Jbh^Talk 00:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Image

See Francis Collins (October 29, 2013). "Basic Science Finds New Clue to Bipolar Disorder". National Institutes of Health. The image is commonly used for the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Thank you. I replied at Talk:Bipolar disorder. It looks like the image has become iconic so I have no further objection to its use. Jbh^Talk 13:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I included a reference with the image but you deleted the image along with the reference.[2] I can include more references to help resolve the dispute. I'd appreciate if you try to find another image before deleting the useful image. Images are beneficial to our readers. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Please keep the conversation on the article talk page. It is hard for me to follow two threads on the same topic and others are participating on the talk page. Thanks! (PS are beneficial only insofar as they are an accurate depiction or representation - see the more in depth thread at of painting] where this started.) Jbh^Talk 17:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jbhunley, Just wanted to say a quick word of thanks for your comments at WP:RSN. Appreciate it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: thank you. Jbh^Talk 20:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Daniel Zamudio

I tried to re-edit the lead to make it less of a biography, but it's not easy with applicable sentences. Will you help me? --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Glad to! I will take a look tonight and see if I can come up with something in my free time tomorrow. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 01:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Jack Vathsan

Hi Jbhunley, please help me fix the issues with the page Jack Vathsan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticallyhigh (talk • contribs)

@Statisticallyhigh: I will take a look at it as I have time today and see what I can do. Cheers. – Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. – Jbh^Talk 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Statisticallyhigh: I searched through the web and other resources I have for material on both "Jack Vathsan" and "Janck Watsan", which seems to be an alternate spelling. I also looked under his given name. I could find nothing other than blog posts and social media. I fear that he does not meet our general notability guidelines or the specific criteria contained in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:FILMMAKER.

If you can identify or provide a few independent third party reliable sources to demonstrate notability I will be glad to help you put an article together. If, on the other hand, no sources can be located within a reasonable time I regret the article will likely face deletion. I will continue to look for material but the best chance of finding something lies with someone who is familiar with the subject and the Indian media, which I am not. I am sorry I could not be of more help. I will keep the article on my watch list so if you locate some good reliable sources please post them there. You can also ping me {{ping|Jbhunley}} from the talk page which will notify me even if I have not logged in for a while. You need to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ or the ping will not work. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Added note Jbh^Talk 16:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jbhunley, This person originally worked with the name Jackson Srivathsan, I gues you are right Jack Vathsan is his a.k.a.

Also, There is a Hindu Article which is on the page. Plus I have added the IMDB link.

• IMDB
• Jack Vathsan on The Hindu

Also, If I am not wrong this page was already up for speedy deletion. I think you or someone cleared it upon the Hindu Article. This person is notable and an upcoming celebrity with a few projects lined up. I shall wait for them to apprear in news or news and then add them. I'll delete the upcoming projects for now...

Statisticallyhigh (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Statisticallyhigh: The single article, which is a bare mention, is enough to have kept the article from immediate deletion, much more is needed to show notability. IMDB is not a useful source for notability because it can be edited by users. Being an 'upcoming celebrity' does not make a person eligible for a Wikipedia, they must already be a celebrity, one with a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise Wikipedia would have hundreds of thousands of articles about people 'trying to make it big', or important in their home town or other small area only etc, and it would be impossible to make sure those articles complied with out policy on biographies of living persons. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 12:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jbhunley, Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it. The Hindu article has appreciated Jack and explained all the songs in detail. Please find some more Citation.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

I'll keep this article as it is. I'll make sure anything I update further has strong Citation. Is this ok? Statisticallyhigh (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• • @Statisticallyhigh: The article has been nominated for deletion by another editor. You should comment in the deletion discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Vathsan. Jbh^Talk 19:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

deletionFinder.js

Hello Jb! User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js is a very useful script, try it. Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Thank you! Jbh^Talk 22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

More leads of...

Rape during the liberation of France – Small article and should have just one expanded paragraph in intro.

Rape during the occupation of Germany – One or two paragraphs; you decide.

Rape during the occupation of Japan – Very short intro; should have concise intro.

Comfort women – Intro should have no more than four paragraphs; it's currently... short.

Unlike other requests, I am not involved in either above article. --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Great! I will see what I can come up with as time allows. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: just letting you know I have not forgotten. Jbh^Talk 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Bill Simmons

I hope you have time on this. I made some edits on the lede, but I think you can do a better job than I. --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 14:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I took a swipe at tightening up the lead here [6]. Bio's are relatively easy particularly when there is good stuff to start with. The above WWII rape articles will be harder. I think I can do something with Rape during the liberation of France and Rape during the occupation of Japan. The others look to have pretty active editors but I might give the a try if I'm feeling adventurous :) Cheers! Jbh^Talk 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Hummer Team, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI or COIN?

Where do you think the report on Ross would be dealt with more effectively and appropriately? I have brought his involvement in directing his article content to COIN a couple of months ago, it was essentially blown off. On the other hand, ANI can be a, as I'm sure you are aware, bloodbath and waste of time as well. Thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I think ANI since it is NOTHERE more than just COI. Unless you can think of an admin who would be willing to make the call. I do not know whether community input it required for a NOTHERE block or not. Jbh^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Done [7]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a thought: If nothing happens with him block-wise or topic-ban wise, what if we just simply ignore him as much as possible? After all, editors are not obligated to edit, respond, or become involved even though someone with an overblown sense of importance makes demands about their BLP. What say you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I am pretty much at that point. I will still respond to requests about BLP violations from him but I am done with trying to resolve his tweaking requests unless it is to help keep another editor from being steamrollered. There have been a lot of bad edits to his biography in the past so I do see where he is coming from but his total lack of respect for Wikipedia's content policies and inability to compromise on matters make his talk page participation problematic and stretches my personal levels of patience. That said I also essentially agree with your statement to him that Wikipedia is able to manage NPOV BLPs without the subject standing guardian - I would not put it in quite the same way you did but I have typed something similar into the edit box three or four times :) I very much hope he will stick to proposing sources and if he must propose a change he should use the {{edit request}} so it can be accepted of declined per COI rules. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 15:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly known for subtlety or diplomatic behavior as an editor.  :-) Even so, the overly harsh tone to my comments directed at him was intentional. It seemed like nothing was getting to him at all, so I went for something that would (hopefully) make an impression on him. He seems to think his self-importance and being a "celebrity" makes him invaluable to Wikipedia and his BLP. Which brings me to another point: his comments and behavior indicates he sees the bio as his and has no concept that it's Wikipedia's bio on RAR, not RAR's personally. I think he believes he has a right to control it. I've seen this happen before at a few other BLPs -- one that immediately comes to mind is the Dave Kerzner article and Sound of Contact. Kerzner came nearly unglued that a maintenance template graced the top of the page for quite a while, feeling it damaged his reputation. Fame, money, and published works cause one to feel entitled, I guess? Personally, I think he claims ignorance of policy as way to seem like an ignorant, humble nobody to be pitied. I think it's part of his act and professional skills of persuasion and manipulation. And, so far, it's been working for him with editors commenting at AfD and AN/I. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Pat Eddery

Lede needs a bigger paragraph, not two. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I am a bit busier than normal in RL but I will try to get to work on it in the next couple of days. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant) bio

I want you to know that I have spent some time reading the Wikipedia rules. In fact I printed them out and studied them carefully, noting them as I have gone along. This included disruptive editing, tendentious editing, civility, personal attacks, bullying, conflict of interest, other stuff exists, single purpose account, manual of style words to watch, neutral point of view, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, dispute resolution, weasel word and identifying reliable sources. These are all areas that at one time you and others have touched upon in comments at the Talk page of my bio. After reading this material I have a much more informed understanding of the Wikipedia editing process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: Thank you for taking the time to do that. I believe that will help out a lot on the talk page. Wikipedia uses many words in a kind of jargony way so knowing how terms and concepts are used here is imperative. Early on I wrote User:Jbhunley/Common policy misunderstandings to help first time editors. It has no official standing but hopefully it sums up some of the key points the policies are trying to make. Maybe it will be of some help to you. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 17:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just printed out and will read and note -- No Original Research. Already have printed out, reviewed and noted other areas listed regarding misunderstandings.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

COI investigations and outing

JBH, I saw your ping at the harassment policy discussion. Don't have time right now to participate with that, but I did write a quick essay addressing what I think some of the issues will be: User:Brianhe/COI investigations and outing policy. Looks like it's not a good time right now to be the nail sticking up wrt outing. Eventually the COI issues will reach a boilover people will agree things will have to change. Maybe the next Orangemoody type case. – Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Casey Conway

Can you expand its lede? --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Sure. I will take a look at it this weekend. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jbh^Talk 16:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Little help

@Randysokofelet: I repeat: I prefer to keep discussion about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. This allows others to participate and keeps a public record that may help others. Also, to be blunt, I will not give out an email address to an unknown user with no editing history who states they want to hide the conversation. I have no reason to receive non-public information from you. If you need help with a private matter please contact info-en@wikimedia.org and I or another WP:OTRS volunteer can help you through that system which is set up for such matters. JbhTalk 13:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a new user of Wikipedia so I'd like to talk to you on how best to begin their contribution to Wikipedia percent perceive that you are efficient users. I would like to give me some Gmail through which I could and discreetly contact you. Randysokofelet (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC) The best place to go for general information is the WP:TEAHOUSE. There are volunteers there who specialize in helping out new editors. I have placed a welcome message with several links which describe how to edit a Wikipedia article as well as the policies and guidelines which apply to content. If, after looking over that material, you have some specific questions or need some help please feel free to leave a message for me here or {{ping}} me by placing {{ping|Jbhunley}} on any talk page and signing the edit with ~~~~. Cheers! JbhTalk 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC) @Jbhunley: I would like to leave me an gmail or if you do not have to define your Gmail so I can discreetly talk to you, that our conservation be hidden from the public took. Randysokofelet (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC) I prefer to keep discussion about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. This allows others to participate and keeps a public record that may help others. Also, to be blunt, I do not give out an email address to unknown users with no editing history who states they want to hide the conversation. I have no reason to receive non-public information from you. If you need help with a private matter please contact info-en@wikimedia.org and I or another WP:OTRS volunteer can help you through that system which is set up for such matters. JbhTalk 09:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC) I'd ask you to leave Gmail through whom I could contact you. Our entire conservation through Gmail will refer to the rules of Wikipedia, and nothing else. Please leave Gmail to ask you question. Randysokofelet (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Little help 2

Editor attempting to avoid scrutiny at AfD. @Randysokofelet: please read WP:CANVASS for why your request is completely inappropriate. Please read notability guidelines for geographic places. The article you note is a named geographic feature and there is enough material to write an article. It needs sourcing but it is very unlikely the article would be deleted at AfD. I have placed the article on my watchlist. If you wish to nominate the article for deletion yourself then do so but do not attempt to avoid scrutiny again by asking another editor to do it in your place. JbhTalk 12:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My question relates to whether it might be asking a page for deletion by substafd but note that in the discussions in person you write it or copy it when you write it here. I hope that you as a perennial users with good reputation would have a greater chance for successful completion substafd process and permanently delete a page than I, and why would I want to put comment. Randysokofelet (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC) The easiest way to nominate an article for deletion is enable WP:TWINKLE by clicking here and selecting Enable Twinkle Gadget click save and clear your browsers cache. You then go to the article you wish to nominate where you will see a menu item TW select it and then XFD, choose AFD from the drop down list and write the policy based reason for why you think the article should be deleted. The reasons an article can be deleted are described in our Deletion policy. Typically articles are deleted for failing to pass out General notability criteria, other notability criteria. After you nominate the article you can let me know and I will take a look at the nomination and post a comment or !vote. If nominating the article is too involved for you to do just tell me the article title and why you think it should be deleted. I will take a look at it and see what I think. If I feel it should be nominated, based on our deletion policy, I will list it at WP:AFD for you and note your request in the nomination. JbhTalk 22:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC) I agree with you. Only my request that you personally write a comment for deletion and do not write that I'm suggesting that you do anything. If you can not accept this and I'll write the name of items for deletion. Randysokofelet (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I accept no conditions - that is not how this works. If I feel the article needs deletion I will nominate it, if it needs improvement I will see if I can improve it, if I think it is OK I will do nothing. I will not act to help you avoid scrutiny. As it is I find your behavior very dodgy and bordering on inappropriate. If you want me to take a look an an article then tell me the article and why you think it needs to be deleted. Otherwise we are done here. JbhTalk 23:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I remind you that I urge you to personally put a comment for deletion and there is absolutely no mention of my account. I hope you set up a page on the discussion to delete because of this my remarks. I remind you that I want to stay completely anonymous for various reasons. I'm asking you to act like you're asked to delete the item without anyone's suggestions. Tornik is part of Zlatibor mountain and not any particular part.There are peaks such as Čigota,small Tornik,Ljuljaš,Tornik...Height top of Tornik not 1502 meters and it is one of the reasons why the page is applied to erase. Height Tornik is not over 2000 meters and it is the norm of high peaks that are supposed to have their own page in relation to the mountains where they are located. In the case of Serbian mountains, all the peaks over 2,000 meters have their own special pages such as Pogled,Pančić's Peak,,Midžor...Tornik is much lower and it is not necessary to allocate a special page of the page Zlatibor. I have therefore submitted an application for deleting pages Tornik. I hope I have your support in deleting unnecessary and redundant pages Tornik. Simply existent page Zlatibor that mentions enhancing the offer is enough. It would be best to completely copying this to my comments, and set it in the discussion as if your without mentioning me. Or that you get the best part comments percent're efficient and exemplary user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randysokofelet (talk • contribs) 06:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Palestine

Hello Jbhunley. This is being discussed at ANI, and yours is one of the names I recognize. Evidently there are AfDs at Ottoman Palestine and Ottoman Israel. Can you enlighten me on why people are saying Ottoman Palestine is under 1RR? And, do you understand the logic of making Ottoman Palestine into a DAB page? How would that solve any problems? Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The whole thing seems to be a storm-in-a-teacup issue to me. I got involved because of a similar complaint at ANI a day or so ago. I think the poster is getting 1RR by trying to claim the pages fall under ARBPIA but I am not sure.

It looks like the whole thing got started with a discussion over whether the page should redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era or Ottoman Syria with Palestine#Ottoman_period and Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem being in the history of the redirect. (I just added those two to the page) Using a DAB was suggested and, I am guessing here, when it was created it come up on the DAB Projects page and one editor brought up a technical issue I can do not understand about too many links. Drama ensued and was shut down. Then some more people from Project DAB showed up and more drama ensued based on specific MOSDAB prerequisites while one of the earlier editors noted that MOSDAB said those prerequisites could be ignored if consensus was that the page would be of use to our readers. Drama ensued.

I believe the issue could be worked out by calm discussion but it looks like there are editors on both sides of the issue who are not willing to listen to each other. Jbh^Talk 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Welcome

Thank you very much for welcoming me! I feel glad to be here on Wikipedia! I'll try my best to make vast improvements to the wiki's content. John "Soap" MacTavish 05:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cpt. "Soap" MacTavish: Glad to have you here at Wikipedia. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me here at my talk page or {{ping}} me by placing {{ping|Jbhunley}} on any talk page and signing the edit with ~~~~. Jbh^Talk 23:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. Have a good day. John "Soap" MacTavish 09:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit at ACN

Hi Jbhunley, edits to the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard may only be made by the members of the Committee or its clerks. I assume you intended to make that edit to the Noticeboard's talk page, so I'll be moving that comment there shortly. Thanks. On behalf of the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@L235: Sorry, my error. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Steve Hassan bio

I noticed that you have the Wikipedia article on Releasing the Bonds up for deletion.

Are you planning to edit the Steve Hassan bio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs)

I may do a bit of clean up, some based on your suggestions, but I am not doing much content or even gnome editing right now per the banner's on my user and talk pages. Jbh^Talk 17:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have posted some important points about Wikipedia policy violations at the Steve Hassan bio. No response.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Will you please review the points posted at the Talk page of the Steve Hassan bio? IMO it's important that there is consistency in the BLP. The same Wikipedia standards applied at my bio should be applied at Mr. Hassan's bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: I have not had a lot of time for Wikipedia lately. The first thing to try is to {{ping}} the author who just cleaned up the article and asking them about the issue. It looks like his books are tagged as WP:SPS in the references sections. When I get a bit of time I will try to take a look, although I am not too interested in expanding into more cult related editing. Jbh^Talk 16:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

ThanksRick Alan Ross (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

At the Steve Hassan bio I have requested two edits regarding a claim not reliably sourced according to Wikipedia standards and self-published books that are not identified as self-published. Would you please consider moving forward on these edits?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: I have a conference this weekend but I will take a look at the requests at the beginning of the week. If you have not heard from me by Wednesday please ping me. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 00:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not sure I know how to ping someone, but I will contact you again through this page.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting back with you about the Steve Hassan BLPRick Alan Ross (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: I have made some changes to the article relating to your edit requests. Jbh^Talk 17:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I viewed the changes. Everything at the BLP seems to be reliably sourced and accurately described now. Thanks for responding.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your patience with others. Something I could be better at myself. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Although it is sometimes less patience than only hitting the save button one time in three :) Jbh^Talk 20:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A second barnstar for you!

The Almost Original Barnstar

Your explanation of things and situations is always insightful and accurate. Your part of a dialogue is always forwarding and instructive. (Maybe not for the editor for which it is intended but that may be beyond your control). Thanks for taking the time and doing more than most to educate new editors...and not-so-new editors that refuse to see through the smoke they themselves create. Buster Seven Talk 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Jbh^Talk 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Rick Ross some thoughts

It seems to me a core group of anonymous editors has made it their mission to filter the facts and make my bio as negative as possible. It's interesting how this works. A small group of POV editors can dominate an article, game the system and make it read however they want, BLP rules or Wikipedia guidelines are fairly meaningless. I tried to work within the system, but my bio doesn't really reflect why I am notable as anyone in the real world can see by using Google and reading news reports and other credible sources rather than relying upon Wikipedia.

FYI--In the real world I am a well-known cult expert who frequently appears on national and international media outlets. I have lectured at more than 30 universities, had three papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals, advised law enforcement, the Israeli government and been qualified, accepted and testified in 20 court proceedings (including high-profile cases reported in the news) within 10 states. And testified in US Federal court after a Daubert hearing. Very few "experts" in my field have been so qualified. The Cult Education Institute (CEI) is the largest database about cults on the Web and has IRS tax-exempted educational nonprofit status. It is in fact an online library and an institutional member of both the New Jersey and American Library Associations. I am its executive director and founder. It was first launched in 1996. I have done more than 500 cult interventions in the United States and around the world and appeared in 13 documentaries. Five cult-like groups sued me and/or the institute in an effort to delete information from the Web. They all lost. I was assisted by large law firms with help from the Harvard University Birkman Center and Public Citizen of Washington D.C. all pro bono. I have been doing my work since 1982 and served on the paid professional paid staff of Jewish Family Service and Bureau of Jewish Education, of Phoenix, Arizona. During the 1980s my work on behalf of the Jewish community was widely recognized and reported about by the media and recognized both nationally and internationally. During the 1990s I became known as a cult deprogrammer and appeared on national talk shows like Donahue, Oprah, Geraldo, Sally Jesse Raphael and others. Soon I moved on to hard national news programs at CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, BBC and numerous local network outlets. I have been quoted by Associated Press, Reuters, Time, Newsweek, People Magazine and print media across the US and around the world. My work has been written about in many books as one editor tried to point out. Since 2000, though I still do interventions around the world (just returned from doing two interventions in Malaysia), I am primarily notable as a cult expert and for the CEI database, and frequently called upon by the media as an analyst, as a court expert and now as a published author. My book "Cults Inside Out" has been published in Chinese and soon will be published in Italian. I will soon appear on the NBC Today Show for the 8th time and have appeared on all the network morning and evening news broadcasts including BBC Panorama. At almost any time you can see me on a cable documentary show cycling on National Geographic, Discovery, A & E, History Channel or on some documentary show or another.

See http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html

BTW--No opposing counsel in any court proceeding has ever questioned any detail in my publicly posted online CV. If they could they would to discredit me in court as an expert.

But in Wikipedia's bubble world or alternative universe I guess I am whatever a few anonymous editors decide I am. Facts are fuzzy to Wikipedians and reality within this subculture created by Jimbo Whales seems to be fairly subjective.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan reads like an infomercial and violates BLP rules, but no one at Wikipedia cares. No changes have been made. I guess Steve hasn't done anything to make anyone mad enough to target his bio for retribution.

In an odd way it's a weird form of recognition for the Cult Education Institute database, Cult News Network and Cult News and my work with the media, courts and law enforcement, that people are using my bio as an attack platform. If our Web presence and my work was not effective they simply wouldn't care or bother.

Oh well, at least I tried. And I will continue to try, but maybe in a different forum that affords me a more neutral and fair playing field. Now I know how Wikipedia really works and why it is not considered a source for reliable information by any serious researcher, other than perhaps checking the article footnotes for leads, which I have done as a researcher at times.

The articles at Wikipedia about Steve Hassan, Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, Persecution of Falun Gong demonstrate the POV editing that makes Wikipedia fairly useless as a meaningful research resource. Some of the articles like Cult Awareness Network and Jason Scott Case are at odds with each other concerning specific facts included in their content. But of course at Wikipedia it's whatever the anonymous editors want to include. The Waco Siege article has a weird title, as it was a standoff not a "siege," but it's not that bad. Apparently some controversial subjects can be handled well by some editors. So things are not completely hopeless in Jimbo land.

Please excuse my "wall of text" and thanks for the pointers along the way in this rather strange weird world. In the end it seems that the wacky and nasty editors often win out within Wikipedia.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: Wikipedia is a hard place to get a grip on and its rules and processes are arcane and can be applied inconsistently because matters are resolved based on WP:CONSENSUS among the involved editors rather than a central authority. One of the hardest things to come to terms with is the difference between WP:NOTABLE/notable. Wikipedia is, nominally, an encyclopedia which means we do not so much write about a subject as we write about what others have written about a subject. You have done some very impressive work but a large portion of what others have written about you is not positive and most of the recent material I have seen is by you rather than about you. I know it is hard to accept but, for instance, being a go to source for commentary on cults is only notable, in the Wikipedia sense, if some third party writes about it - 50 articles where you are interviewed about a cult count for little while one article commenting on you being interviewed 50 times is significant. Because of how Wikipedia is written, by a group of volunteer non-experts, we value the independent reliable source above all else - see WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:V for more on this.

When a large, diverse group of editors, like you have at your article, tend to agree it means that the policies are being followed. While I am not familiar with all of the editors there I am with many and they are all very experienced BLP editors. Some of them are often on opposite sides of BLP issues and one is a self-styled "BLP champion". If you remember the advice for BLP subjects sent to you by OTRS, the person who wrote that has been involved. There are some who push for negative material but I have not seen any evidence of malicious intent - more it looks like the COI push back I mentioned to you. We have a huge problem with COI and paid editing here and COI editors, particularly those with a perceived financial interest, are really disliked, those who are perceived as trying to control "their" article much more so. That is not necessarily fair but we are volunteers with 5 million articles to look after, thousands a day to review and many, many more to write and our time is precious to us. My sincere belief is if you address one issue every couple of weeks and allow a couple of days for other editors to respond to each other rather than responding to each comment things would be better.

As to the Steven Hassan article. You did a good job of editing the draft. I have not had the time to go through the sources but will at some point. It is very promotional and looks like not much had been done with it in the years since it was first written. A weakness of Wikipedia is if no one draws attention to an article once it has been written and gets through New Page Patrol it will stay as it was. There are under 4000 volunteers here who make more than 100 edits per month and maybe a couple hundred, if that, of those seek out old articles to work on. There are over 5 million articles here so...

As noted above, I am pretty busy with real life right now but I do keep an eye on your article. At the top of my talk page, under the User menu, there is an Email this user link. If you are having problems and not getting a response you are welcome to send me an email. I may not agree with you but I will always give you my fair opinion on an issue or try to explain how I think a particular policy applies. If you keep only one thing in mind going forward remember this: On Wikipedia the reliable source is king. Technically nothing should be written in Wikipedia that can not be cited to a reliable source. I can not stress enough how much editing other articles will help you both in understanding Wikipedia and in building a reputation as an editor rather than a COI editor. Even something as simple as starting out by using automated tools to clean up bare urls in references or commenting at article deletion discussions. You seem to have a pretty good idea of our policies so maybe just try going to random articles until you see one that needs a bit of work, even really minor stuff. You can always contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me by placing {{ping|Jbhunley}} on any talk page and signing the edit with ~~~~. Jbh^Talk 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

PS - You should re-write your NPOV noticeboard complaint by quoting the section of the article (the China book) you want an opinion on and say why you think it is not NPOV. A general complaint is not going to get any response. You should also always provide diffs to back up your complaint. They is an informal saying at the noticeboards 'diffs or it didn't happen'. If you do not know how to make diffs see the WP:Simple diff and link guide. In this case, if you have trouble, you can write up your complaint on your talk page, ping me, and I will edit it for you to post at NPOVN. Jbh^Talk 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

PPS No problem, I write walls sometimes too (obviously! :) ). I edit conflicted with your last edit. Yes, Wikipedia is a general "gee I wonder about X" resource. It is very influential and valuable as a common touchstone of information for laymen but writing about anything one is an 'expert' on is an exercise in frustration. I stay away from editing on International Relations or the type of violent sub-state actors I am familiar with for just that reason. Maybe some day I will have the patience and discipline to write about such things but anything one does original research and analysis on in real life is bound to be frustrating. In that case it is best to pretend you are writing a literature review rather than presenting your own knowledge. I know of very few people who enjoy writing literature reviews but not doing the follow-on analysis. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I know why I am notable. The undue weight at the article given to the Scott case is fairly ridiculous. I am notable as a cult expert, deprogrammer and probably most widely for the Cult Education Institute and my Web presence. Remember Jossi Fresco? He used to have fun editing my bio along with a few Scientologists and other cult members before they were banned. I'm sure there are still a few editors lurking and popping in that are somehow associated with cults listed at the CEI database. I am willing to work within the guidelines to get the bio to a place where it is less ridiculous and more serious. I am a reasonable man. But some of the editors appear to be at best petty and at worst vindictive. It's easy when you don't post under your own name. At times Wikipedia can seem kind of creepy and cult-like in its collective mindset. But then some editor will make a common sense observation that is like a little ray of hope. I am not interested in becoming an acolyte of Jimbo Whales. I am focused on not having lies, distortions and grossly misleading things said about me on Wikipedia. It's not about business, it's about telling the truth.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: That is the disconnect. You know why you are notable but all Wikipedia can do is regurgitate what other people have said about you in reliable sources. Here is the gist of it from WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ^{WP:UNDUE (emp. mine)} The bulk of RS material written about you seems to be from Waco and the Scott case so that is what the bulk of the article discusses. To shift that weight you need to provide reliable sources that talk about you in relation to other things. There is really no other way to go about it. Again, read WP:TRUTH. Jbh^Talk 18:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No there is no disconnect on this end. The bulk of articles and interviews over the years have been about various cults and me commenting as an expert. That's the reason I am interviewed. I am considered an authority on cults and am interviewed and lecture on that subject. I have provided reliable sources on this at the talk page. The Scott case is forgotten and 25 years old. The Scott case is primarily remembered because of Scientology not deprogramming or me. This is one reason the BLP is so ridiculous. I am asked about Waco. The BBC called me yesterday to talk about the Waco Davidians. I am considered an authoritative source regarding the Waco Davidians. The minority opinion of scholars at my bio (some tied to cults) regarding Waco is not mainstream and again ridiculous. I do thank Wikipedia editors for unintentionally exposing the "scholar" Anson Shupe who lied in his book (probably funded by Scientology) that there was a "hung jury" at my trial regarding Jason Scott. Shupe was a highly paid "expert witness" working for Scientology at the civil trial and he absolutely knew about the outcome of the criminal trial. Now I know that he deliberately lied in his book. So much for the supposed academic integrity of Shupe. Lewis and some of the others noted have the same problem. They are not reliable sources and have worked with cults.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: As counter-intuitive as it is, Wikipedia does not really care about people interviewing you or you giving comments or analysis on cults. It cares about other people writing about you. Until you internalize this basic fact about how articles are written here your expectations will be out of sync with the reality of this place. This is a problem that has been discussed for years in relation to our notability criteria for academics. No matter how expert they are in their field if no one is writing about them in RS they do not get an article.

There has also been a lot of discussion about how to handle RS that are wrong - I have seen times when it has been handled by citing the incorrect source as a "minority opinion" - and no consensus has ever formed to simply discount them because often "wrong" can not be proven. That is why there was a lot of discussion about "acquitted". Wikipedia makes the assumption that RS are correct. This is a feature which allows non-experts to write an encyclopedia and drives subject matter experts nuts. Jbh^Talk 19:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have provided reliable sources to demonstrate why I am notable. If you and other editors choose to ignore those sources and Wikipedia allows that there is little I can do about it. All I can do is act in good faith according to the stated Wikipedia rules even if others don't. Again, I am not notable today for the Jason Scott case. I was briefly notable for that case 25 years ago. There have been many articles written about me and interviews about my work since the Scott case and academic sources to support this factual conclusion. I continue to be notable as a cult expert generally and about the Waco Davidians, but as the Davidians ended decades ago that topic doesn't come up much in ongoing reports about my work, media interviews, news reports, etc. when I am asked to comment. It may be mentioned, but is not the focus of interest. What has been proven at the talk page of my bio is that academics often skew or simply lie and are not always reliable. The few academics that were critical of my work at Waco were of no consequence. The majority of academics regarded the Davidians as a doomsday cult and Koresh as a psychopath. That is the vast majority opinion of historians and is the historical record. All Nancy Ammerman did that was notable is directly contradict the Justice report and the FBI regarding their statement that I was not consulted. Her characterizations of my advice were ridiculous, false and her minority opinion represents a fringe theory.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Randall Carver

Can you help me expand the lede of this BLP? Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Sure. I will take a look at it in the next day or so. Jbh^Talk 19:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Scientology

Your view of the specialization of one specific editor in scientology-related articles? I note a lot of deletions of material which is uncomplimentary to that group, and inclusion of material uncomplimentary to some who appear to have opposed that group, alas. Including a "very strict interpretation" of BLP for the cases where deletions are made in favour of that group <g>. Like removing sources previously vetted at RS/N. Collect (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have alerted that editor to WP:NEWBLPBAN it might be worthwhile to notify them of the Scientology DS as well. I am very concerned that they are here to push a POV and some of the material they recently added to their user page was revdeled, per my request, as attack material. The only, barely, mitigating factor for their recent edits is I looked up "Deprogramming" in my Encyclopedia of Religion 2ed, a very mainstream source, and the way it describes Ross and the Scott case is more in line with the way we had it before RRs requests than now.

[T]he single legal case that finally brought an end to the CAN was Scott v. Ross (1995), a civil suit brought by Jason Scott, a United Pentecostal adult whose mother hired an “exit counselor” named Rick Ross to deprogram her three sons from a church of which she disapproved. After Scott’s two brothers were successfully deprogrammed, Scott was violently abducted, physically abused, and forcibly detained at a remote Washington State location for almost a week.

The jury was clear in its decision to award damages to Scott ($875,000 in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000; against CAN; $2,500,000 against Rick Ross; and $25,000 each against Ross’s two accomplices). The CAN’s primary activity in this and other operations was to provide the public and the media with false or inflammatory opinion in the guise of “information” about unconventional religions. The jury’s decision, under the definitions provided in Washington law, was that CAN was an organized hate campaign. In a curt note to the defendants, who appealed the verdict, U.S. district court judge John C. Coughenour concluded:

Finally, the court notes each of the defendants’ seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this litigation, they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of Mr. Scott’s counsel’s alleged agenda. Thus, the large award given by the jury against both CAN and Mr. Ross seems reasonably necessary to enforce the jury’s determination on the oppressiveness of the defendants’ actions and deter similar conduct in the future (Scott v. Ross, 1995).

From: Jones, Lindsay (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion 2ed volume 4. McMillan Reference USA. p. 2292.

He might have a point that the article is tending to a positive-POV but the way he is going about it - and the Scientology POV pushing - is not a proper or constructive way to go about it. If it keeps up may be worth pursuing sanctions over. (I only bring the above quoted material up because, as an encyclopedia published by McMillan Reference, I think it might be a reasonable touchstone for NPOV, not to propose changes in text, and yes, I agree completely that the recent additions are way over the line) Jbh^Talk 14:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

One might also note the issue Cult_Awareness_Network#60_Minutes_special_report indicating that material presented at the trial might not have been "kosher" - that one of the key witnesses recanted testimony afterward. In short, the CoS may have been a prime mover in an improper adjudication. In point of fact, the 60 Minutes item from 1997 might well be of value on the RAR BLP. And RAR is a pita - but really I suspect his attitude would be likely for anyone who sees their own BLP being used for specific POV pushing. Note also the temporary addition of "deprogramming" to the pseudoscience list <g> by the same editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Dealing with Scientology related material is very difficult since they put out a lot of misinformation. Jbh^Talk 15:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Scientology?

[8] is my post regarding an editor who has made many apparently pro-Scientology edits in just the past two weeks. Just to let you know. Collect (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I fear my credulity has been tested at this point, and found wanting. :) Collect (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep... I saw your comment on Bish's TP. I agree that there is likely a desire to push POV and in particular negative material into BLP's. It is not a competence issue. It is, in my opinion, a PR campaign for whatever motive. Jbh^Talk 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For some weird reason <g>, I prefer "UT page" instead of "TP" -- must be a cultural thing ... Collect (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha! :) Jbh^Talk 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your section on my Talk page. (Paid Edittingh

I'm figuring things out I'm not entirely sure how to reply to a talk page yet so I've felt posting on your talk page will get my reply to you for sure.

I state that my employer has no relation with my Wikipedia account and under all situations and conditions I take no compensation or financial gains from my edits what so ever. My edits are completely mine and I don't benefit from doing so in any possible way.

Thank you, Joseph Sakr

Thank you for the quick response. Please see my full reply at ANI [9]. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 16:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Signing your posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

;-) ;-) ;-)

LjL (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks :) Jbh^Talk 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Double irony: turns out in the same thread I signed with only three tildes so in fact I didn't sign... either. LjL (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha! One of those days huh? :) Jbh^Talk 18:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Komati Caste

Hi Jbhunley,

I have edited a page called Komati Caste and have provided ample references and citations for the same. Request you to please review them and advise.

Reg,

Wise Wik — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@WiseWik: I removed several obviously inappropriate sources - Wikipedia self-cite, links to user generated content / web pages etc. Please read Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources as well as the policies on verifibility and no original research. The other sources you cite need to give page numbers for where the information you are referring to can be found. I know nothing about castes so I can not really comment on the article content. Later, when I have a block of free time in a day, I will see if I can find some other references on the subject.

Keep up the good work. Wikipedia's sourcing policies can be difficult at first but good articles require good sources. If you have not read it yet WP:FIRST has good advice but make sure to read the blue links in it as well since they describe the policies in detail. Jbh^Talk 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley

Thank you for reviewing my page and correcting my edits!

Regards,

WiseWik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.167.197 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley and all the esteemed editors and readers of Wikipedia - Kautilya, the edits to the article is as per the reference cited and have given comments for every edit mentioning the same. Request you to please check them before removing the edits. As per the edits I have only reinstated what is mentioned as per the references cited. Why is the same being reverted would this not be called edit warring? and rather the privileges of such editors be revoked here? And again why is sourced content being modified here. I have clearly mentioned the reference as well as the reason for the edit in the edit summary for all my edits under the heading "Edit Summary". The reference cites Komatis to be present in Maharashtra and will repaste the same reference that you yourself have sourced and cited (BTW looks deliberate as there is inclusion of minor incidents that reference to riots and other inciteful content between communities which serve no informative purpose here) To further reason, why should any incident involving another community that occurred during the British Era in a particular time limited to George Town which is nothing but a nook and corner incident, even find mention here? and again I have only included only the sourced content from the same reference provided then why is it removed and pasted in bits? as if to incite people or communities further? I checked further and found these to be included by user Kautilya and is of surprise to me here as I didn't expect this from Wikipedia editors as I held user Kautilya in good esteem.

Again it clearly mentions riots happened when business contracts alluded Komatis and Balijia Naidus who were first to riot with Beri Chettiars which forced the British to apportion commercial and residential areas of George Town.

My edit cites the same here below is the reference" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=imh4AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=komati+caste&source=bl&ots=UPEt8nWzsh&sig=dLRi4_vSSASbrRCjU_mZ3_EZoEY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwialpWjjIHLAhUGcI4KHRXAAFA4ChDoAQg_MAc#v=onepage&q=komati&f=false"

Mines, Mattison (1992), "Individuality and Achievement in South Indian Social History", Modern Asian Studies 26 (1): 129–156, JSTOR 312720

Also finally let's not discredit the origins of Gomathi for the alternate origins mentioned by authors during British times and exclude the importance of contemporary authors and keep both of them. Mentioning Gomathi as "one theory" seems to discredit the same, hence I have mentioned both the accepted and alternate theory about British authors during the Raj. I also checked further information and also found that the Author is from the same community and hence it's of obvious credence. Also the same that the word Komati to have its origins in Gomathi is mentioned in government journals which cannot be rubbished away.

Regards,

--WiseWik (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)WiseWik

Dear Jbhulney, Since this editor is thankfully taking your advice, can you please advise him on the procedures of WP:BRD? I have responded to his issues on the Talk:Komati caste, but I am afraid his repeated POV-pushing is getting tiresome. I might need to take it to WP:ANI if he continues in this way. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

The content of the Rick Alan Ross article is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution notice.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: Thanks for your work at the article, but I hope you don't mind if I speak bluntly about WP:DRN: time spent there on a case like this is time wasted. My only concern is that you may get exhausted from the protracted bickering, which is the means used by edit warriors to drive away opponents—wear them down by engaging them in never-ending disputes until they go away. DRN is great when people of good faith come together to learn whether there is a solution to a content dispute, but DRN is a waste of time in a case like this. You don't need to say anything there, and what third-parties at DRN think has no bearing whatsoever, so my suggestion would be to ignore it. By the way, text is missing from the "talk" link in your signature—clicking the link does not go to this talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: It all looks moot now. The OP at DRN has been topic banned, not an unexpected outcome considering their history on the article.

Thanks for pointing out the messed up link. I munged my signature on one of my posts at DRN when I was editing my next comment (not used to iPad editing) and "corrected" User talk: Jbhunley to UserJbhunley breaking the link. Jbh^Talk 15:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sommer Nectarhoff

My proposed page for author Sommer Nectarhoff was recently deleted after the recommended changes were made: journalistic, researched sources were added. I am confused as to what steps must be made for the page to be put back up. Writerlier (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Writerlier: The problem with your article is that you have not provided, nor could anyone find, sufficient coverage in indepenednt reliable sources to demonstrate notablility. What that means is coverage in major newspapers/magazines etc, not coverage in blogs, school papers, podcasts, user generated reviews etc. The coverage must be unrelated to press releases or PR campaigns and must be significant. Usually that means several paragraphs of coverage in 3-4 articles which appear in at least regional newspapers. In addition to this, self published books are inherently non-notable as is self publishing a book so until he publishes his works at a real publisher, the kind that pay advances rather than are paid by the author, there is no real chance of him passing the notability criteria for authors. Read the blue links that have been mentioned in the AfD's and here, they explain things in more detail. Jbh^Talk 16:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If I am beating a dead horse please tell me.

I do not hide the fact that I think Rick Ross is on Wikipedia to promote his business. But even I am a bit shocked at this. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Hassan&action=history. He has spent months getting wearing others down getting them to edit his own article his liking but now he is going after a business competitor using other editors as a proxy. To me this must be crossing some kind of line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rick_Alan_Ross. I fully realize you may be sick of it, but I am still wondering what you think. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See my answer over at the RR talk page [10]. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 00:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jbhunley. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia library Newspapers.com renewal

Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on April 17 2016. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until April 17 2017, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. HazelAB (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WT:HA

Given your stated interest, I really would appreciate it if you would take a look at my proposal there and comment on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for advise

I'll admit that I was not as careful as usual on my last batch of reviews--I've been busy with a lot of things lately, so I didn't give it as much time as I should have. I'll take more care form now on and read up on your recommendations. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Thank you, we all have those days, me as much as anyone. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Those scripts/tools I mentioned on your talk page are a great help. You may also want to co sider "unreviewing" any marginal articles after yoy tag them - the NPP Tool automaticly marks anything you tag as reviewed. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh^Talk 15:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and advice. By the way, I'd like to use the tools you've recommended. Where can I go to find these tools--I'd love to know how to access them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: WP:User scripts has lots of useful scripts which you add to your Common javascript in Preferences one importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js'); will place a prev del in the page title if the page has been deleted before. WP:Hotcat can be enabled in Preferences/Gadgets. A couple others should be in the menu bar at the top of your page Page==>Tools==>Copyvio detection tool and Page==>Tools==>Expand bare references if they are not there you may need to enable them by importing a script from WP:User scripts. You can look at my configuration at User:Jbhunley/vector.js and User:Jbhunley/common.js. Those configs are kind of sloppy because I just cut/pasted things but I do not know javascript. Jbh^Talk 17:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Garagepunk66: You may want to check out User:Kudpung/NPP mentoring it looks like someone else is asking for an NPP course and you may want to join in. Kudpung is kind of the Eminence grise of NPP on Wikipedia and does a good tutorial. Jbh^Talk 20:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Look who's back...

Hey JBH, have you noticed that Ankit Love has once more graced us with his presence? The article is just as bloated as last time, I've been watching and trying to muster up the energy to do something about it, don't exactly relish the task though. Just thought you might get a laugh out of it - especially all the more recent coverage about him running for mayor of London! Fyddlestix (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: hey! long time no see! .... That article will always have a special place in my heart At least this time no one is claiming he is royalty or a race car driver or whatever... If you decide to dive in ping me and I will help out. There are a couple of decent sources in that pile. Jbh^Talk 18:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Nice job cleaning up the article. It looks much better. Jbh^Talk 14:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't take much credit for it though, Drmies did most of the cleanup. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

NPA concepts

From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

Being "not congruant with their past statements" is lying? Really? In that case, I probably lie at least weekly at Wikipedia. And yet, I've never been accused of lying.

I've seen people blocked for less blatant PA than that. Does this Fram person have some special status I'm not aware of?

Perhaps you could give a hypothetical example of something you would consider a personal attack. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise we end up with a community where no one can be held to their own past statements/promises or even to a common objective reality.

I disagree. You can do that without ever using the word "lie". The difference is AGF or no AGF. Until we develop the ability to see into others' minds the word "lie" should be a bright line. When used against people who view themselves as being honest, it's a highly offensive accusation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've looked at the thread at the Village Pump now, and what I read there, promising to do something and then not doing it, and apparently never having intended to do it, is IMHO lying... Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, believing that someone is lying and accusing them publicly of lying are two very different things. I really thought that at least some of Wikipedia was better than this. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You claimed that accusing someone of lying is a personal attack according to WP:NPA and raised the matter at WP:ANI, obviously seeking some form of sanction for Fram (why else would you post at ANI?), and I'm proving you wrong on that point. Which isn't the same thing as me saying that putting it in bold letters in a section header at WP:VP was a nice/proper/collegiate thing to do, or something that I would do myself, all I'm saying is that it isn't sanctionable. Thomas.W ^talk 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said I personally prefer to avoid "lie" just as a generally avoid using "fuck" on-wiki. The way our "content-not-contributor" ethos is there is a big difference between "you have told lies; you are lying; that was a lie; etc." and "you are a liar". Just like with Sockmasters we are not required to AGF in all circumstances. AGF is the starting point when one is examining the actions of others - this is enshrined in the oft quoted, and often overquoted, "AGF is not a suicide pact". Jbh^Talk 13:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about Dhananjay gangal

Hi Jbhunley,

Thanks for your comment on Dhananjay_gangal page. What sort of biographical sources should I add? Would be grateful if you can let me know.

Prashant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant P Karhade (talk • contribs) 08:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prashant P Karhade: Wikipedia's notability guidelines require significant coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of an article subject. What this means is a source must be published by a third party with a solid reputation for fact checking and accuracy. We need this to be able to verify the information in an article. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. (You should never place unsourced information in an article in the first place though.) While there is no requirement for sources to be in English, this is the English Wikipedia and most people will not be able to judge non-English sources, particularly if they are recordings rather than text.

In the case of the videos you placed in the article they were obvious copyright violations. Wikipedia's external links policy forbids linking to copyrighted material. The other source was written by the subject of the article rather than being written by someone else about the subject. What you need to find are articles about the person and to trim away all of the claims which are not supported by the sources.

Because there is so much information in the article and no sources to say where that information came from I need to mention Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest which say people who are the subject of an article or know the subject of an article should not be editing the article. Rather they should use the talk page to suggest edits or use the Articles for Creation process to have the article reviewed. Wikipedia also has a very strict policy, WP:PAID, if someone is being paid to write an article. Anyone who receives compensation for writing an article must disclose they are being paid, who is paying them and on whose behalf they are being paid. Once the disclosure is made they should edit as I described for editors having a conflict of interest.

Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail and please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 13:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

this edit summary made me laugh out loud, because it was exactly like edits I used to make before I installed a spell checker plug in for firefox. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I spell phonetically but I think with a Southern (US) accent, that and I randomly mix British and American spellings. I am used to having the misspelled words underlined but I have been using my iPad recently and iOS does not do that. I turned on autocorrect so now I may get weird words I did not mean to type but at least they will be properly spelled :) Jbh^Talk 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

CBEs

Hi there. I see you have reverted my edit on Julie Williams (scientist) changing 'awarded a CBE' to 'appointed a CBE' on grounds that a CBE is awarded not appointed.

CBE stands for 'Commander of the Order of the British Empire'; when one is made a member of an order of knighthood (as the OBE is) one is 'appointed' or 'made' and not 'awarded' - the latter terminology is for medals and decorations which are not awarded in order form. Although it's common enough to say that someone is 'awarded' a CBE - certainly it's intelligible shorthand, it is inaccurate English usage. To illustrate the point further, it would be absurd to say that one is "awarded a Member of the Order of the British Empire", i.e., as it is obvious that you can be made a Member but not awarded a Members (you can of course be awarded a membership, in which case one would write - clumsily - that X has been "awarded membership int the Order of the British Empire"

I have accordingly reverted your revert; I hope this clears things up!

Atchom (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Atchom: No problem. The common usage ie this BBC article Falklands veteran Simon Weston awarded CBE by the Queen seems to be "awarded" however I do see "appointed" is several, arguably higher quality, places. The "common usage" can often be both common and wrong :) Jbh^Talk 20:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean at RSN

"that is significant and we not have a secondary source which says that it is significant." [11]. Even assuming you meant "we do not have...", I'm not clear on your meaning. Maybe I didn't drink enough coffee today? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably not expressing myself well and/or am confusing my arguments - I doubt coffee would help with that :) Essentially we now have a secondary source which considered the FBI statements re Ross significant. It also, as a matter of interest only, comments on why the FBI may have worded their section on Ross so oddly. In short part of the original argument was the FBI source was primary and no one considered it significnt enough to remark on in the secondary literature. That is not the case and it is necessary to know the FBI's claims to be able to discuss Ross' roll in Waco.

Really the Waco section just needs to be re-written but if the idea that the academic literature is somehow inherently biased against Ross catches on it is not worth the frustration. If I hear Ross say 'that source is bad they are NRM apologists' about one more critical source I may pull my hair out. It seems that everyone critical of him is an "NRM apologist". It seems that somehow the narrative Ross good - NRM bad is beginning to catch on. (Yeah, cults suck but, based on the sources, Ross is no angel either. He just has the time and energy to "manage" his BLP.) The more I read of the history or the "NRM/Cult wars" the more I see both sides are guilty of propaganda pushing. Personally I will take the views of the recognized experts unless and until I get a PhD in the subject (Not going to happen). Jbh^Talk 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Redaction at WP:AN

I notice you redacted a possible WP:OUTING violation, which is fair enough - but the identification is clear from the user's block log. Perhaps that needs to be redacted as well. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I redacted based on the linked user page saying "This is a previous account of a current user but that the username isn't here for privacy/harassment issues" placed by an, at the time, admin. Maybe it is no longer applicable since it was placed over a year ago. Jbh^Talk 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern Levant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

RE:EllenCT

I think we've just received our answer from AN/I. Based on the closing statement, all articles and pages related to and on economics, so no, I don't think we'll have to worry much about a $ sign on some random article. Good that ought to make the situation sufficiently clear to EllenCT about where she can and cannot contribute, and also, to others on what she can and can not contribute. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is always good to bring up potentials for unintended conciquences and you are correct that it is good to avoid the chance of gaming sanctions to force an editor off. Note though that is is "edits and pages" [12] rather than 'articles and pages'. Typically this wording lets an editor edit articles/pages which contain material they are banned from but are not primarily about such topics so long as they avoid the portions relating to the topic ie allows them to edit Noticeboards, JT, Congressional Budget Office etc so long as they stay away from stuff relating to their topic ban.

If you notice someone trying to game the ban with petty stuff like $ signs etc please notify me. I do not believe it would be canvassing to do so as I a) was involved in the original discussion and b) have expressed an interest in being notified.

Cheers! Jbh^Talk 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct edits and pages, sorry my mistake. Agreed and wilco, let me know if you see such behaviour as well. I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions but tend to try to keep up with further discussions that spawn of ones I have participated in. Happy editing, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I have closed down the RFC's here and here as they are malformed messes which are not going to go anywhere. If you wish to re-open them, please rephrase them into a more appropriate RFC, otherwise standard discussion on the talkpage should suffice. I am also notifying the other likely contributors. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree they were malformed as well as being unlikely to be productive. I have no desire to reopen them. Jbh^Talk 20:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Glebos Tkachenko

I think the Article I am working wright now Is very nice, It's about young artists, I preform dozens of independent references to proof the information I have researched, I can not see any reasonable reason to delete it. I still working on it, So I would really appreciate if I have some more time to develop the article. //redacted a bunch of references I can see in article in question Jbh^Talk // — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusavitskiy (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dusavitskiy: I would suggest, very strongly, that if you wish to create an article on this subject that you make use of the Articles for Creation process and draft the article in DRAFT space. That way it will not be subject to deletion before you have been able to get it to a level which is acceptable for Main space. Right now the article is not significantly different to the version which an AfD discussion decided was not appropriate for main space. If you would like me to move the article to DRAFT:Glebos Tkachenko please leave me a note here and I will do so for you. Jbh^Talk 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Art Supawatt Purdy

I'm trying understand the process now I know I started wrong with Art Supawatt Purdy article and should have started with the article of creation. But could you please help me to understand more about these articles (and hundreds more) and how they are not deleted? Are they paid articles? or are there something under the table I dont know about? Otherwise, it seems like a double standard to me, and wrong for the people who comes to Wikipedia for information: Worarat Suwannarat
Sririta Jensen
Mai Charoenpura
Wannarot Sonthichai

Thank you so muchGreekadoniz (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is written and curated by volunteers there are often inconsistencies in articles. We call arguments based on that WP:OTHERSTUFF ie other stuff exists but just because one or many non-policy compliant articles exist does not mean another should. If you feel the article you mentioned do not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines then nominate them for WP:AFD. That is how the system works - sometimes bad articles get through, if someone notices them they try to fix them, nominate them for deletion or, as is often the case, if they are uninterested they ignore them. -- No conspiracy, no underhanded dealings, just lots of people working randomly on a site with 5,000,000+ articles and hundreds of new ones per day of which many are written by people who do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There are about 3000 highly active, long term experienced editors here to write content, manage the internal editorial processes, review new articles, fix old articles and help new editors hopefully become long term editors. Some stuff just slips through. Jbh^Talk 05:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

So you didnt read them or check the history, because you did you would learn that they have been nominated for deletion and they;re still there. I want to learn, not to cause problem for other people or being baby by saying why they can and I cant. I ask you because I htought there is a simple explaination that I dont know.

Tokyogirl was saying about the article I used in my reference that she cant comment unless she sees the article. I understadn that you would have to be the one to undelete my article after seeing better reference so Where can I send the scanned pages to please?Greekadoniz (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not an admin and can not undelete however the article was only redirected so the text is available in the history. Someone has already copied the text to DRAFT:Art Supawatt Purdy for you. You should work to improve the article in Draft space and then use the Submit your draft for review button to get an AFC reviewer to look at the article. If a lot of the sources are in Thai you should ask at WP:WikiProject Thailand for a Thai speaker to review it. (@Kudpung: Do you speak Thai and do you know anything about this actor?)

Also, I looked at the articles the ones which went to AfD were closed as No Consensus becuase no one !voted. The one which was deleted CSD#A7 was not the same version (I assume) because A7 means that the article made no claim of significance, for example it may have just said '... is an actor.' I suspect the reason they have not been nominated again is no one wants to for a WP:BEFORE because they do not to speak Thai and do not want to search for sources. If you know enough about the Thai film industry to know they are not notable and think they should be deleted I can walk you through how to AfD them. The easiest would be to activate WP:TWINKLE in your Preferences and use its XfD menu item and type a reason like "There is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this article to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR." If you do choose to nominate them please notify me and I will sort them into deletion categories so more people will see the discussion. Jbh^Talk 12:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on this I think en.Wiki should have an article on Art Supawatt Purdy. This was one example where nominated in good faith, an AfD failed miserably due to lack of knowledgeable participation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I had looked at a GTranslate version of the Thai page but, while there was a lot of information about him I could not see any RS to back it up. Everything seems to be really brief mentions of him in the movie and it does not seem he has a big role in Soi Cowboy, at least not from what I can find (From what I can glean he likely just sang the theme song). Do you know if the TV shows and other movies are significant enough, and his roles prominent enough, to get him over WP:NACTOR#1? From the Thai page it looks like he played unnamed roles ie "aid worker", "Runaway" and a lot of odd things like "Mach", "floor", "the screen" which must be machine translation errors. Or maybe one of his songs made a national chart? (I do not even know where to start for Thai music charts - all of the sources provided are press releases) If so I have no objection to bringing the article back as a stub under an SNG but all of the biographical details seem to be coming from places like IMDB and this.

I did a search on the th-wiki's article title ศุภวัฒน์ อ่ำประสิทธิ์ (Which Google back translated as "Supachai Valley gloomy performance" which seems an inauspicious name for an actor :) . My guess is Google does not have Thai to English down yet.) and from this it looks like he may not even have a big following in Thailand if a "fan site" is anything to go by. I found one article from a news site which would not translate [13] and lot of Thai coverage which looks be in relation to Gold 10 but nothing jumped out at me as being more than passing mentions of him.

It is frustrating, the original author really seems to be trying to get a good article together but I can not find and they do not seem to have even a single solid independent RS write up on him. From his site, where I would expect to find chart listings, links to major articles etc, it looks like he is mostly a model [14]. There are dozens of cover shots but not much else. Jbh^Talk 15:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There are still a few languages that machines will probably never be able to translate, and Thai is one of them. Common first and family names come up with ridiculous equivalents, something in Thai could translate as The tree on the moon favours egg yolk for washing machine bearings. Furthermore, Thai has very little grammar as we know it, no inflection, and no punctuation, so where we rely heavily on tenses, gender, number, and mood, Thai can only be largely understood by context, which leads to enormous problems of communication even between native speakers. Finally, We must be tolerant with articles from and about developing countries where Internet based sources may be scarce. It's really a question of a mild form of IAR. I would not waste too much time and energy on it - we have far more important things to chase such as COI and other paid advocacy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung OK. Thank you for looking into it. Also, fascinating about the Thai language... Cheers. Jbh^Talk 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

He has a pretty big role in Soi Cowboy if you actually see the film. Not only he recorded 3 songs for the soundtrack, he also appears as himself, the Thai Star that the lead female adores very much. A few clips of him from his mini-series were used in the film to establish that is a star. Clips from Soi Cowboy on Dailymotion showing the lead female watch Art Supawatt on TVClip from Soi Cowboy showing Art sing songs from his album in a private live Performance

I can not find a fan site for him either, but I found his youtube channel. There are serveral clips from Gold 10 or Thong 10 more than 300,000 hits with over 4000 followers. Please check it out here: Art Supawatt Purdy Youtube ChannelGreekadoniz (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

My best advice is still to go through Articles of Creation and WP:WikiProject Thailand. I simply can not in good consiance say I think he meets, or comes close to meeting, Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion - YouTube hits and such simply does not cut it. If you work with WikiProject Thailand you may find editors more familiar with his work who can judge the argument that he has had enough significant roles in enough TV shows to pass WP:NACTOR and they should be able to judge the coverage in the Cover Man source as well - I thought I had seen the Living in Thailand article and it barely mentioned him but I can not find it now so I may be misremembering but AFC can work with you on that.

It is always difficult to show notability for non-Western people and subjects on en.wp because we are inherently biased to English sources but in this case even the article on the Thai WP does not have better citations. Please feel free to contact me if you need other assistance but I am out of ideas as far as this article goes. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have not look at the Living In Thailand im referencing, because my reference has him on the cover with two other actors and there're at least 2 pages combined of his interview inside along with those 2 actors there are 6 pages. I understand you probably dont have a lot of time to devote on my article to really check my reference, but please dont assume the worst and say things like 'it barely mentioned him' I spent many many many hours researching trying to proof that the article im creating is good. I went out to looking in many old magazine shops for magazines, any magazines that talks about him. Its not that hard to find them in Thai, but its super hard to find 2 in English. Im willing to send the article to proove....but you chose to shoot it down and implied that my reference is worthless.

Does someone has to be popular to be notable? BUt you said he must not have big follower because you found a gossip site that was created in 2008, long after he was relevent. So I go and find something current in youtube to show you that if you want popularity, he may have some, considering a total of almost 3 million hits he's got on his clips. I was not using his youtube as a reference, but to show you that your guess and assumptions about him once again is wrong. I dont know if you're being this way is your way of teaching me to dig deeper and to become a better Wikipedia Editor, for that I thank you and I will not give up. As long as I know that in your heart, you know I am on the right path and doing the right thing. THank you again.Greekadoniz (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said above I may have misremembered or been thinking of another source... no need to go off the rails. I have given you my best assessment and told you how you may be able to proceed via AFC and WikiProject Thailand.

Please, if you have not, carefully read, a couple of times, Writing your first article and our basic policies; Verifibility, Notability and the associated General notability guidelines, our policy of what is and is not a reliable source and our policies on biographies of living persons. Once you have done so select three or four solid Independent (Not from a publicist, or a press release but from a third party completely unconnected with the subject) reliable sources (I would suggest that each source have at least 2-3 paragraphs discussing him, if one is a full page or more then you probably can get by with 2 or 3 initial sources). Once you have those write a couple of paragraphs citing each factual claim to one of those sources. If the sources are offline it may be a good idea to use the quote= parameter in the {{cite}} template to include the quote and a translation to help the AFC reviewer, the quotes can be removed before finalizing the article but knowing the text you are working from will help the AFC reviewer a lot. You can then use the less detailed or lower quality sources to flesh out stuff like the discography, TV and filmography tables if you need to but it is those initial few sources you started with that will matter for notability. After you have done that submit the article to AFC.

That is the best advice I can give you, don't pile on lots of little passing mentions or social media comments or links to movie scenes - pick three good sources you can write an article from. If you can not find those initial sources demonstrating "significant coverage" then move on to a different topic because 95% of the time if you can not demonstrate basic notability with 3 sources then it does not matter what you pile on as references, the article will not pass GNG because no amount of passing mentions, minor quotes, blogs or social media can take the place of those initial "significant coverage" sources - that is just how "notability" works at Wikipedia. Jbh^Talk 19:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, and Thank you for still mentoring me. I hope this make you proud. I found a way to create an external link to the raw scan of the magazine article about him in PDF file. Would you be so kind and please follow the link and see if I can somehow use this as my reliable source? I thank you in advance:

1. Big Chilli Magazine: Art Cut Loose
2. Living In Thailand: Man In The Dock]
3. Gent: Cover Man]
4. GM Magazine: From The Cover & The Script of his Life]
5. KhunYing Magazine Ask The Stars: Love Life]
6. Movie Entertainment Home of the Star- Supawatt Aumprasit]
7. PuYing Magazine All Star Duo-The New Generation]

Greekadoniz (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I reformatted things a bit and deleted the hyperlinks because they are "links to copyright violating material" - see WP:COPYVIO. (Personally I consider the links fair use for the purpose of examining them but others may disagree and since I have looked at them there is no more need for the live links. Just do not link to the scans in the article.) I can not assess the Thai language sources and I doubt an AFC reviewer would be able to either so when you cite them in your draft I suggest doing it like this <ref>{{cite news|periodical=(Name of journal)|title=Article title|page=page number|date=date of issue|quote=The Thai text you are basing the statement on // An English translation of the text}}</ref> See {{cite}}. As to the two English sources I think #2 is quite good, it is definitly not the article I thought it was. Source #1 is kind of meh mainly because it does not have a byline and could be a press release. Assuming a couple of the Thai sources are in between #1 and #2 in quality then you have enough to, in my opinion, establish notability and write an article.

If you do the citations and translations as I suggested when you write the draft you can leave me a note here when you are done instead of, or as well as, pressing the Submit your draft button and I will review the article for you. That said, even if I think it is good enough there are no guarantees someone else may not think it is not.

Start by writing something and citing every claim of fact, opinion or quote to one of those seven sources. Do not bother with tables or even different sections, just get three or four paragraphs written based on those sources, with citations and translations then ping me and we can go from there. Jbh^Talk 21:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. It may take me till next weekend to do this becasue I have to work during the week, but Ill carefully do as you advise me. THank you again for giving a chance from the beginning, and willing to stick with me (and my ignorance) until now. Greekadoniz (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No rush. I will be on holiday part of this month, you can check the orange banner at the top of this page or my user page if I will not be active for a week or more. Other than that I usually see messages pretty quickly, my day has lots of little bits of free time but not often long stretches of it.

Everyone starts out ignorant of the arcana of Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia does a horrible job of explaining to new editors what is actually involved in writing a good article about a notable subject. I hope that once you get the hang of article creation you will choose to continue at Wikipedia. We need people like you who are willing to track down old sources and write about topics not easily accessible. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right about that new editor is almost like working in the dark. I learned from looking at other articles and studied the differences by examining the differences in codes, syntax and markers. Using trial and error with many many previewing to find what I want. Then, I learn bits by bits from you and your advice each time you suggested something.

To be honest, I went through the extent that I did because I want to prove myself to you and everyone that I am correct. Sometimes your comments are encouraging but sometimes are harsh but I can feel that you meant well. Your harsh comments really worked to challenge me even more to find the way to get my point across when i believe that I am right. Sometimes I almost think you made those comments on purpose to help me, like what my teachers in college used to do to push me. I'd like to continue to be a contributor on Wikipedia for sure, I already know what I want to write next. This time though I will do it the right way. Greekadoniz (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments were over harsh, I tend to be direct but I do try to admit when I am wrong - that and I am an American and no one in the rest of the world ever accused us of having a polite culture even when we are trying not to be obnoxious . Looking forward to seeing your article. Jbh^Talk 14:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Bateman

(In response to following:) @Seraphimblade: The picture associated with the article is also a COPYVIO (it says it is from an Abercrombie Fitch ad and is uploaded to Commons as "own work"). Would you please tag it for deletion there or leave a note on my en.wp talk page about how to do speedy deletes on Commons. I do not know the processes there or how to find the file now that the article is deleted. Thank you Jbh^Talk 12:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

First, if you need to contact me regarding something, please do so on my talk page. Don't comment on closed discussions, whether at AfD or otherwise. As far as flagging for deletion at Commons, it's fairly easy to do—use the "copyvio" template on the image at the top of the page, and then as the first parameter leave a brief explanation as to why you believe it's a copyvio. The explanation should include a link to the image. I didn't find it on Tineye or with a web search myself, so I'm not sure enough that it is a copyvio to put it up for speedy deletion there, but I've filed a deletion request for it since it's highly unlikely Abercrombie licensed an ad photo under a free license. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

• 13 July 2016: 7,000
• 1 August 2016: 9,000
• 7 August 2016: 10,472
• 16 August 2016: 11,500
• 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I do not have a lot of free time but I have spent some time on NPP this morning and will do more during my down time. Jbh^Talk 14:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability tag on Paul Supramaniam

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I've restored the notability tag on the Paul Supramaniam article as I have not been able to find any sources verifying the Dato-Knight Commander of the Order of Pahang (DIMP) Award. Aust331 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aust331: No problem. Thank you for letting me know. Jbh^Talk 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jbh, the source you provided fails WP:RS as it's a PDF file that can be easily altered. If you cannot find another source, I'll need to restore the tag. Thanks. Aust331 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)