Jump to content

User talk:jmcgnh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maierc1982 (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 14 September 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your Teahouse response

It has been suggested that some people think they are supposed to create a username that is related to the article they are working on. This is still a reason to change to the name, but it's not as bad as simply impersonating the person. I took a second look here and you said "perhaps imply", so that's not the same as accusing. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: I was just trying to point out the potential problem, not make any sort of accusation. So we're good, you and me, right? If you had not seen the Augustine Grant article before it was deleted, the situation may be unclear. In that article, it was stated that "Augustine Grant" was a stage name for a Ray Jacobs whose name could logically be abbreviated as "R Jacobs". That's also what it looks like at this edit at Good Lord, an edit has gone unchallenged. It doesn't look like this username did any more work.
And, yes, it's fairly common for people to create a username that is the same or obviously related to the article they intend to create. It's a practice that can't be stopped, since new editors who come to Wikipedia primarily to create an article will not necessarily have been presented with any information about how the process works or what WP practices are. "Can't be stopped" without seriously violating the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" principle, I mean.
So I'm curious; why has this issue arisen more than a month later? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're good. And I was having trouble with my Internet back in February, and looking at the Teahouse archives is still going kind of slowly.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the infobox on "Transactionalism"

As I move to create an article for the book, I wondered if you might have an answer to a question. Is there a way I can cut and paste the markup code for an infobox into a new article or do I have to create it all from scratch again? sheridanford (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SheridanFord: You can cut and paste infoboxes, but there may be one or more few fields that relate specifically to the article the infobox is placed in, so those would need to be updated after the paste. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NLP AFD

Hi, as somebody who has contributed recently to articles on neuro-linguistic programming I wondered if you could have a look at this AfD, which is not getting much attention. Famousdog (c) 07:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famousdog: Thanks for thinking of me. I'm afraid I have little to add, for or against, to the AfD. NLP is a sufficiently important, though fringe, topic related to psychotherapy that Gilligan's role in its foundation – if that role were suitably documented in the article – that content would strike me as sufficient reason to say Keep. As the article currently does not adequately document much about Gilligan's role in NLP or other aspects of his particular practices, I can easily see why someone would vote Delete. I'd prefer to see an expansion, but I'm not going to pretend that I'll ever do anything in that direction. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Jordan Peterson

Hi Jmcgnh you undid my edit to Dr Jordan Peterson's biography without referencing the talk page as requested. Please egage on the talk page if you wish to make changes to my edits. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will discuss at Talk:Jordan_Peterson#Dr_Peterson.27s_critiques_and_commentary, not here. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At The Hub

I'm starting to wonder if this issue on the talk page needs to be looked at by some more neutral eyes. The comments regarding the talk page especially concern me, as that's not how a talk page works. I'm really seeing a good deal of ownership on this article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore:, I entered this discussion based on unusual edit summaries at Recent Changes. I may have deviated from strict neutrality by calling the old lead sentence "ridiculous", but it was so far from normal Wikipedia writing that I felt a strong response was called for. I probably went too far and, now that I've engaged, I probably can't be considered neutral any more. In my opinion, the IP editor has engaged in several disruptive practices, the most obvious behavioral problems being the deletion or archiving of discussions and demanding ever-more-explicit interpretations of various rules and guidelines as a form of Wikilawyering. There's also something resembling ownership of the article, or, at least, an expressed belief that the amount of work they put into it contributes to the decision on whether the content can remain. More eyes and voices are needed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing their last comment on the talk page, WP:OWN definitely was the issue I believe. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RickinBaltimore:, agreed. I'm attempting to somewhat ameliorate the situation with some suggestions that I hope will be taken as constructive. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Cullen328, I was happy to support you. I'm glad the video of your talk about The Teahouse got posted at the AfD, too. I thought about doing it, but someone got there before I did. Happy mopping to you! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lommel

Hey i saw you did edit Lommel. Well, could you maybe answer my question at Talk:Lommel. Thanks, Bobbyjohn10 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbyjohn10: If I had a good response to that question, I might have answered it, but I don't. This is the English version of Wikipedia and I have no objections to articles using English names for things, though I could be amused by "Leghorn" for "Livorno". In my experience, the Dutch speakers I have run into all understood and spoke English well enough to help your hypothetical tourist with no hesitation at all. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Digital Science

Hi, I have improved the draft.Kamsgeber (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Jing Wen

Hi, I saw your comment and I know a lot of the references go back to her former modeling agency but I didn't realize that was promotion because some of the verifiable facts of models such as height, their portfolio, etc. come from the agencies. A lot of the designers she worked for were more unknown than the prominent ones and I didn't have the discretion to remove which work she did if there were photos of it somewhere. Anyway, I'll try to fix it and thanks for the review.Trillfendi (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Min-on draft

In March DrStrauss left the following comment on the draft page: Comment: Advert tone fixed but still needs more independent references. DrStrauss talk 14:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC) This was followed by another editor who went back to the “advertisement tone” view. Then in July DrStrauss contradicted his previous point and returned the “advertisement tone” view. Submission declined on 9 July 2017 by DrStrauss (talk). This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I have read the link to “reads more like an advertisement.” I have read the draft for Min-on over and over and cannot find evidence as such. Please specifically inform me what “reads more like an advertisement.”

I have scoured the Internet and there is very little in English on Min-on. I used what is available.

First footnote is from Jamaican publication The Gleaner. Jeaneane and Merv Fowler are scholars at University of Wales, Richard Seager is a professor at Hamilton College in New York David Machacek, is a lecturer at University of California at Santa Barbara. Bryan Wilson is Reader Emeritus in Sociology at University of Oxford in England Tokyo International Competition for Conducting. Although the competition is organized by Min-on, it is supported by the Foreign Ministry of Japan, the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, and Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK). Judges for the competition come from Austria, Russia, Korea, and Netherlands as well as Japan. Olivier Urbain is a Swiss poet and writer. He has a Wikipedia page (without any sources.) I am at an impasse here, if you can help, I would appreciate it. I think a large international concert association like Min-on deserves to be included on Wikipedia.Stgrlee16 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stgrlee16 and thanks for opening up a discussion. I can't respond in full right now, but when I get a bit more time, I'd like to move this message and discussion to the talk page for the draft. There's a gap between "deserving" and "can be adequately documented" that we have to bridge. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

followup re FNQ politics

You: Resubmitting without addressing the problems already pointed out is unlikely to get a different result. Lots of reviewers have looked at this submission by now and, as evidenced by their lack of action, agree with the initial review by Primefac.

Me: Inaction is not evidence of agreement.

You: In your discussions at the Teahouse and Primefac's talk page, you have made the general claim that Pudnicks meets a notability standard other than the one for political office holders.

Me: I have made no such claim. I look at NP-POL. If you assert I did make a claim, it might help your case, if you can please quote the text where I did that?

Note: I have asked for review at top link.

Skinduptruk (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Skinduptruk, I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion. I don't disavow my review, but I'm finding that I can no longer be neutral in dealing with you and would prefer to let other AfC reviewers deal with your submission and its issues. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, ok, thanks for your review to date.Skinduptruk (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for everything!

Cloudcityline1017 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Draft: Chicago Toy & Game Group

I was thinking that we could change the article title to Chicago Toy & Game Fair because that was what the article was about. If we cannot then do you think it would be best to create a new article. Additionally, in regards to the licensing of the image, Chicago Toy & Game Group commissioned a graphic designer to create the logo so they own the license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberks (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dberks: You should be able to change the name on the draft by moving it. See WP:MOVE. Let me know if you need help with this. I think your article has a better chance if it is primarily about the event and only incidentally about the organization.
As for the logo: When you uploaded it, you claimed it was your own work and that you were releasing it under a very generous license that allows anyone to use it, including selling it. I suspect that's not right. There's a different procedure to allow non-free copyrighted works to appear on Wikipedia, but it involves making a fair-use claim that its use in the article is for identification or critical commentary. See WP:NONFREE for more about that.
That still leaves the question of your connection with ChiTAG, since you use the terms "they" and "we" in a way that might possibly be interpreted as you working on their behalf. There's a policy called WP:PAID that would apply if that is the case.
Sorry if this all seems bureaucratic. Creating a new article on Wikipedia can be a pretty difficult task and writing the article in the proper style is only about half of it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not working or being paid on their behalf. I know the people who run the group and am assisting them as a friend. At this time, I have no professional connection to the Chicago Toy and game group. So I will move the article and reach out to them regarding the ability to use the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberks (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Jmcgnh. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex ShihTalk 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas McCarver

Just a quick note, Everipedia says that its content is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 [1], which is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, as long as a link is provided. So the copyright issue could have been fixed by noting the URL of the Everipedia article in an edit summary. This isn't normally the case, but if the website copied from looks like a wiki, this is definitely worth checking. In this case however, the article subject, like many new articles on Everipedia, does not meet our inclusion standards, so I've nominated it at AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas McCarver. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: OK, it looks like I completely misread the situation. The URL copied from was included at the bottom of the article as its only reference originally, so strictly speaking, everything the original copier did was within normal rules. It just looked bad and it wasn't apparent that that editor had any idea what they were doing. I'll keep this incident in mind for the future. Thanks for the note. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I messed up as well, turns out that per the table at WP:COMPLIC, CC-BY-SA 4.0 is a free license that is incompatible license with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0, so your original tag was correct, in a roundabout way. :D ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: yes, I saw all of that. I was "correct" technically, in the end, but my understanding of the situation was two steps away from being knowingly correct. I'll accept it all as a lesson learned. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Thanks for your contributions! ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Domdeparis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:ChenqiMou/sandbox, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Domdeparis (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


18:37:47, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Maclafornia925



I have made several changes for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Montana_Montana_Montana please let me know if it is ready for submission


The Articles for Creation barnstar
For your support to newbie editors by taking the time to crafting personalised comments that help them improve their drafts, rather than simply relying on the templates. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:23:41, 5 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Chefarsts


Hi. I would like to refer to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources While I can understand that it is not easy to verify the source, it's not impossible. The mentioned statutes are, even if their title might be misleading, not self-written, and published in the university's library. Additionally, other web sources, such as http://www.riga.diplo.de/Vertretung/riga/de/01-Willkommen-in-Lettland/Aktuelles__aus__Lettland__und__Touristisches/AktuellesausLettland/AktuellesausLettland.html and http://www.rsu.lv/eng/study-here/upon-arrival/student-life/student-organisations/deutsche-studenten-im-ausland support that claim.

Chefarsts (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chefarsts: I don't think I was questioning the verifiability of the references. In order for there to be an article on Wikipedia, there must be an assertion of importance to start with and, if the article is to remain, a substantiation of notability. It is only once we are over that hurdle that these other considerations come into play. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletion

@Jmcgnh, you invited me to contest deletion of my picture and articles, but i cannot find the thread here; DON'T DELETE ANY OF THESE FILES, PLEASE, THEY ARE MINE WHICH I HAVE POSTED IN OTHER PLACES SUCH AS FACEBOOK, IF YOU WANT ME TO HIRE YOUR SERVICES, JUST SAY SO PLEASE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maenowandstephane#BY_DR_STEPHANE_BOBE_ENGUELEGUELE_ON_JUSTICE.2C_POLITICS_AND_TOLERANCE https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/MASAI_SLIPPERS_FROM_TANZANIA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maenowandstephane#BY_DR_STEPHANE_BOBE_ENGUELEGUELE_ON_JUSTICE.2C_POLITICS_AND_TOLERANCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maenowandstephane#Barrister_Stephane_BOBE_ENGUELEGUELE_GRANTS_AN_EXCLUSIVE_INTERVIEW_TO_JEUNE_AFRIQUE_ON_THE_EZEKA_CAMEROON_CASE_SUIT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maenowandstephane#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_User:Maenowandstephane.2Fsandbox.2FDr._Barrister_Stephane_BOBE_ENGUELEGUELE_SPEAKS_ON_THE_ANGLOPHONE_CAMEROON_CRISIS.2C_THE_RELEASE_OF_DETAINEES_AND_THE_WAY_FORWARD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maenowandstephane#Maitre_Stephane_BOBE_ENGUELEGUELE_TALKS_ON_THE_ROLE_OF_THE_JUDICIARY_IN_THE_ANGLOPHONE_CAMEROON_CRISES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maenowandstephane (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maenowandstephane: Files that you place on Wikpedia inappropriately will certainly be deleted. You are posting material which is copied from other websites or publications and posting material on your user talk page which is not in support of the purposes of Wikipedia. If you continue to misunderstand why your files are being deleted, your ability to edit on Wikipedia may be blocked. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

Re. [2], per WP:BLANKING: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: (e.g.) Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block" (my emphasis). A subtle but significant difference. Just FYI. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 10:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: thanks for letting me know the letter of the law. I thought I had several times seen users' blanking of their block notices reverted, but apparently this was either my mistaken impression or a common, but not exactly correct, convention. I shall not attempt to do this again. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Due diligence: I've also now read the 2014 discussion where this was hashed out in some detail. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for sticking with me to the very end in order to publish my article Laytongku. I have also been guided wonderfully in order to place a photo on the page. Since I was kicked out of the Teahouse I wonder if I dare post a thank you to all those editors/administrators who offered me help since John from Ideligon wrote that I should never post there again.Palukiwa (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Palukiwa: Probably would be best to thank them individually on their talk pages, as you did with me. I'm glad this situation worked out as well as it did, even if there's far less about Laytongku in the article than you would like for there to be. I don't think you are banned forever from the Teahouse, but probably best not to post there again about this article for a while. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:41:17, 14 September 2017 review of submission by Maierc1982



i was a friend who created the page it was the leader of the church i need you to approve it if thats ok i am a editor myself i will resummit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmcgnh&oldid=800518917"