I am a writer, editor, researcher and consultant with a background in the architecture, engineering and environmental consulting industry. I am employed by a small (20+) engineering firm near Boston. I also have had a consulting business in various levels of activity since 2002. My involvement in Wikipedia is driven by the satisfaction of contributing to the process and a long and somewhat obnoxious need to correct things. I am not here to promote businesses with which I have a financial tie (despite accusations to the contrary).

Deval Patrick

show me the source articles. Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "JAGG102502Group", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because "group" implies shared use, which is not permitted. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

I moved it back to draft to let independent non-conflicted editors review it. Since you simply moved the article back to main space without fixing the fact that it's a blatant advertisement, I've no real choice other than to delete it. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help!Wow, that's disappointing. A lot of hours I could have spent doing something else. Can you please be more specific? DGG advised me to make changes, which I did. Was it being reviewed while in draft status? I moved it back to article status so "non-conflicted editors" could assess the revised article and potentially fix any remaining issues. Do you have any additional information or guidance? Is there some type of appeals process? Because I'm having a hard time understanding how anything in the article I just moved is blatant advertising, especially when considered in the context of the entries for every other engineering and architecture firm I've ever read. If I'm going to earnestly continue to contribute to this project, I need to understand how you judged a strictly factual, extremely well-supported and deserving article to be blatant advertising. Thanks.JAGG102502 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you were looking for "yes" so did not see "no". Basically you want to publish an article about a company where, I believe, you have a close connection, and you have no prior experience of Wikipedia. Instead of writing the draft, requesting publication using the links in the draft template, and letting others review and feedback in detail, you focussed only on your goal, which is, bluntly, indistinguishable from PR. Given that your username matches a PR company, that is not unexpected, of course. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, this is far from my only problem. But now I'm even more confused. While I thank you for not immediately deleting my first effort, it seems it was a mere stay of execution rather than a second chance. I removed scads of material as directed by DGG and went overboard to ensure against anything even hinting of promotion. If my next step should have been to request publication using the links in the draft template, why didn't someone say so? I obviously would have followed any protocol you or the others on that talk page recommended, especially after having my character somewhat savaged the first time around. I explained my reasoning for republishing the piece on the DGG talk page (which is still the only place I've received any constructive criticism, though apparently not enough). If you want me to run it through that process, I am happy to do so and confident that it will eventually pass muster. To that end -- and I'm sorry to belabor this and waste more of both our time -- it seems that your concern has everything to do with who you THINK I am and what you BELIEVE my motives are, and little to do with the actual content of the article. The fact is, I have a full-time job in a firm that has nothing to do with this company (and I have not, nor do I plan to submit an article on my current employer...we're a nice little firm, but frankly we don't warrant it). As for my side business, from which my user name is drawn, PR is a minuscule bit of what I do. (Yes, I. Not we.) I'm a writer first, researcher next and consultant third. This connection is something I've clearly not tried to hide...or else I'm really bad at disguising things. So where do we go from here?JAGG102502 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JAGG102502. Could you please tell me the title of the article that was deleted? I don't have much influence on Wikipedia but I will try to help. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the interest. Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B) was deleted. I've pretty much thrown my hands up at this point, but it might be helpful if you have some advice on how to avoid this kind of thing next time (assuming there is one). It does bother me that the page is flagged as being deleted for "unambiguous advertising," which is simply not true. I've asked for advice and received mostly stern warnings and accusations in return. Not exactly the welcome I'd hoped for. Thanks again. JAGG102502 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you create a sandbox and start to write your article in it. There are fewer rules about what you can put in a sandbox. You can see my sandbox here User:Roberttherambler/sandbox in which I have started to create an article. Let me know when you have started the article in the sandbox and I will try to suggest ways to make it more acceptable to the Wikipedia hierarchy. Some of them don't abide by Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Roberttherambler (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I actually did write it as a draft in what I assume is the sandbox. I moved it directly to an article page, which was apparently my mistake. It got sent back to draft. I made substantial revisions based on the suggestion of username DGG and published it again -- which apparently was my second mistake; I should have submitted it for review (which I've never done and wasn't sure how to do). It was deleted almost immediately, as you can see from the comments above.

Wikipedia is a minefield. I have created a new draft at Draft:Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B) but I suggest you don't add to it just yet. Please insert your suggested content at Draft talk:Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B) and I will check it and insert it into the draft article. Roberttherambler (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure seems like it. Thank you very much. I'll try to carve some time out this weekend to tackle it again. I really appreciate the consideration.JAGG102502 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the text minus the citations. When you get a minute to look at it, please let me know if you think I need to make any changes. Thanks again.JAGG102502 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roberttherambler Hi. Anything else you think I should do? Thanks.JAGG102502 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay. I suggest you now move the article back to main space and see what happens. If it is proposed for deletion again we can object to deletion on the grounds that the company is notable. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to New England Patriots does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Your edit was good, the only thing missing was some indication of what you did for those of us who review changes. Saying something like "copyedit, broke run-on sentence into two" will help reviewers know what to expect. Regards. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I usually do, but where it was just a minor edit, I thought it was fine to just say so. As you explain it, I see the mistake in that. I'll be sure to from now on. Thanks again.JAGG102502 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry on paid editing

I've noticed that the articles you are creating often are overtly promotional in tone. There may be other explanations for this (such as excerpting material from the company's website), but I have to ask if you are compensated for editing these articles. If so you are legally bound by the Wikimedia Foundation's policies on this issue. We have a number of paid editors on the project who work harmoniously with their fellow editors, but it's essential to be up-front about the situation. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. I continue to be floored at this. Could you please describe what you mean by "overtly promotional in tone"? Everything I've written is either directly referenced or my own writing. I've never done a cut-and-paste from a company website. I've gone out of my way to write from the neutral point of view required here....so please, it would really help me if you could point to something I've recently written that is "overtly promotional"? I'm apparently struggling with the correct way to show that a company is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page without sounding like I'm promoting them. If I've developed a "salesy" writing style, I need to know this. Or is it considered promotional simply because it's about a commercial enterprise?

As to your question about being paid, I've been upfront about this from the start. I've been involved in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) business for 24 years as a writer, editor and consultant. From 2012 to 2015, I was employed by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, but the company no longer exists. So there is no one left to pay anyone for anything about FST, nor is the firm that acquired them paying me to write an article about a firm they acquired. I wrote that article because FST was a legacy firm with a long, exceptional history that I believe deserves to be recognized. It was swallowed up in 2015 by a much larger company (as often happens these days), at which point I left. I currently work for a smaller engineering firm (that actually competes occasionally against VHB, an incomplete article I originated that is in a sandbox I think). Our firm is not notable to the extent that it warrants a Wiki page...probably never will be.

Of the four articles I've created, and the dozens of others I've edited, for only one is there any type of financial tie, and an indirect one at that. The first article I created was for a company that employs as a consultant an occasional collaborator of mine in a freelance business (from which my user name is taken). I have done consulting work for this firm, through him, but my income is not affected by whether they get a Wikipedia page or not. Regardless, this firm -- Jaros, Baum & Bolles -- is notable in its own right; over 100 years old and important engineering work done on over 100 of the world's most well-known skyscrapers. (Some of the feedback I received on the initial article is frustrating because it perpetuates the unfair view that engineers don't deserve the same level of credit that architects do for a building...if they only knew.) The firm's lack of a Wikipedia page, when so many of its peer firms have pages (often arguably less notable firms, but with lots of what I would consider overtly promotional language) was one of the things that encouraged me to look into becoming an editor last summer. I clearly went overboard with the first article, modeling it after others in the consulting engineering space. I've since learned that this was a mistake (not to mention a waste of my time) and that many of these articles (though not all) were written prior to the tightening (an understatement) of the standards for publication. The original JB&B article was returned to draft format with scant guidance on how to improve it, but no shortage of vitriol and accusations. I revised it and republished it, but it was swiftly deleted. At that point, I thought it a dead issue -- the company has been around 100+ years without a Wikipedia page and done just fine, so c'est la vie -- but then another user (see above) somehow noticed the situation and offered to help....a surprisingly rare thing in my experience here thus far. He and I worked on it and now he recommends republishing it. I'm not so sure it won't just get axed again. I reached out to the admin who deleted it last time to get his thoughts...nothing yet.

The latest article I originated -- on HydroCAD -- happened simply because I was looking through the list of requested articles and saw it on the list. It's a software that I know a little bit about because it is widely used by the engineers I work with. I wrote it because I wanted to...that's it. I don't know a soul at this company. And, to be honest, I wouldn't go to the mat to defend their notability to anywhere near the extent I would for the other three articles I've written. That said, other than the beatdown I'm getting about the millions of dollars some administrators seem to think I'm making by writing Wikipedia articles, I actually enjoy being part of this and contributing in the areas where I have some knowledge. What I can't figure out is why people are making it so difficult to do so. I also believe, since my initial experience with the first article, that my writing couldn't possibly be less promotional in tone without losing all meaning. I have to wonder if everything I do is now being looked at with a jaundiced eye.

Phew...sorry for the venting. I hope I answered your question and I hope you'll answer mine.JAGG102502 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. And I owe you an explanation in turn. I looked at the JB&B article and saw things like how they provide "specialty services" and they are "notable for its work on many of the world’s signature high-rise buildings," then looked at some other articles you'd worked on and saw comparable language, then thought to myself maybe there's something going on here.

I'm completely satisfied that that's just the way you write. The Wikipedia house style is rather dull and lifeless, so writing that departs significantly from that style tends to stand out. Would you mind if I edited the JB&B article in such a way as to remove things that could be misunderstood as promotional? You'd be entirely free to accept or disregard those edits as you see fit but it might be helpful in demonstrating what I mean. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris I'd greatly appreciate it. Somewhere in the dissertation above, the key statement is that I'm still learning how to strike a balance between sufficiently expressing notability without sounding like a cheerleader. I welcome any improvements you're willing to make. Not only will it help this particular article, but it should give me a better sense of how to do this going forward. Thank you.JAGG102502 (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris I took a stab at taking out some of the language you mentioned. I removed the word "specialty," though I should explain that I included it simply as a counter to the traditional or core services that the firm provides. No loss. Please let me know if I'm on the right track. Thanks again.JAGG102502 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JAGG. I made a bunch of edits with explanations in the edit summaries so that you can see the points that might be of concern. Then I reverted my edits back to your latest version so you can adopt any of these edits as you see fit.

The overall idea is sometimes described as "show, don't tell." General statements - even if true - usually are best replaced with specific facts. A cooked-up example might help make the point. One could write "Acme Corporation is a worldwide leader in architecture that is known for designing some of the world's most renowned structures." That may well be true, but using vague terms like "leader" and "most renowned" can get people's BS detectors twitching. Contrast that statement with "Acme Corporation, an architectural firm, produced the designs for the Taj Majal, the Great Pyramid of Giza, and the Empire State Building." The style is rather dull but the reader sees that and concludes on her own that this is one of the world's leading architectural firms.

Maybe that clarifies things or maybe not -- if you have any questions just ask. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris It clarifies it perfectly. It's actually enlightening for me because it shines a mirror on my writing style. I may have lost -- or misplaced -- the ability I once had to present "just the facts." I prefer your version to mine and have reverted to that version. Do you recommend moving to article status now or some other review? Thanks again for the advice and patience. JAGG102502 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Brigade Harvester BorisYet another misstep. See below. Thank you again for your help and time investment.JAGG102502 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps have waited for an answer to that question, but I see that you decided not to. I've moved the page back to draft space, at Draft:Jaros, Baum & Bolles – I may be wrong, but I don't think it would survive a deletion discussion as it stands. May I suggest that you draw on the experience of other seasoned editors by making use of the Articles for creation process? All you need to do is to add {{subst:submit}} to the page, and wait for a reviewer to look at it (there's quite a backlog, so there's unlikely to be any instant gratification here). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers (talk)Haha. I thought that might be the response. Patience isn't my greatest attribute. For the record, I was planning to leave him a note, but got distracted and fell asleep. I'm not sure what's left to discuss. It's 10 bone-dry sentences about a firm that's notable enough to have at least a half-dozen references in other Wikipedia articles. An article that long-time user and former(?) administrator Shock Brigade Harvester Boris invested his time to edit and improve. That another user recommended I move to article status a couple of weeks ago, but that I didn't for this very reason (and because I'm in a figurative knife fight holding a plastic spork). So I'll follow your advice -- and thank you for it. I can only hope the U.S. Congress vets the laws it passes half as thoroughly as this little time-waster has been.JAGG102502 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jaros, Baum & Bolles (March 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Too suggestive of an advertised business profile, sources are too trivial as announcements or notices.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jaros, Baum & Bolles and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jaros, Baum & Bolles has been accepted

Jaros, Baum & Bolles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jaros, Baum & Bolles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bank of China Tower. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Diane Creel concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Diane Creel, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Diane Creel

Hello, JAGG102502. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Diane Creel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC) For reference there was zero content on the page. The only info was the title so there is nothing to refund if you want to write this topic someday. Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Legacypac Thank you and no problem. I didn't get very far, did I? I will return to it someday as she is an important figure for women in technical professions. Thanks again.

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Willis Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aon. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I fixed this, but I will check to confirm. JAGG102502 (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 55 Hudson Yards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WSP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Black & Veatch

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Black & Veatch, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]