User talk:Jaking01
Hello world!
Jaking01, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Jaking01! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
| Views/Day | Quality | Title | Tagged with… |
|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 
|
Sōmen (talk) | Add sources |
| 23 | 
|
Youmian (talk) | Add sources |
| 16 |
|
Milmyeon (talk) | Add sources |
| 4 |
|
Neville Jeffress (talk) | Add sources |
| 27 |
|
Acorn noodle soup (talk) | Add sources |
| 10 |
|
Gogi-guksu (talk) | Add sources |
| 653 |
|
Maribor (talk) | Cleanup |
| 212 |
|
Council of Economic Advisers (talk) | Cleanup |
| 18 |
|
Jernej Kopitar (talk) | Cleanup |
| 34 |
|
Rudolf Maister (talk) | Expand |
| 92 |
|
Ptuj (talk) | Expand |
| 75 |
|
Sapporo Ichiban (talk) | Expand |
| 513 |
|
Yakisoba (talk) | Unencyclopaedic |
| 356 |
|
Monopsony (talk) | Unencyclopaedic |
| 367 |
|
Dryland farming (talk) | Unencyclopaedic |
| 86 |
|
Mee pok (talk) | Merge |
| 65 |
|
Nem (talk) | Merge |
| 548 | 
|
Broth (talk) | Merge |
| 4 |
|
A. D. Roy (talk) | Wikify |
| 281 |
|
Cup Noodles (talk) | Wikify |
| 247 |
|
Arne Duncan (talk) | Wikify |
| 21 |
|
MyNetFone (talk) | Orphan |
| 19 |
|
Cover-More (talk) | Orphan |
| 18 |
|
M-Brain Group (talk) | Orphan |
| 7 |
|
Wolgwa-chae (talk) | Stub |
| 31 |
|
Bokkeum (talk) | Stub |
| 12 |
|
Maocai (talk) | Stub |
| 21 |
|
Oil noodles (talk) | Stub |
| 14 |
|
Pancit estacion (talk) | Stub |
| 3 |
|
Gradec, Litija (talk) | Stub |
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
International Justice Mission
[edit]Hi, Jaking01. Thanks for your recent edits to International Justice Mission and for discussing this edit request. If you're still interested and there is any way I can help, please let me know. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Jaking01. I posted a new edit request to move Thailand brothel raids from Criticism to History. If you can review my draft, that would be great. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Jaking01. If you're still interested, I posted a new edit request to move the material pertaining to IJM work in Cambodia from Criticism to History, similar to how you assisted moving details on Thailand. I'd appreciate it if you could review this draft, too. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Jaking01. I'm not sure if you had time to check out my latest edit request, but if you have any questions at all please don't hesitate to let me know. SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Jaking01. I have one final edit request at International Justice Mission. If you have time, can you give it a review? Of course, if you have any questions at all please don't hesitate to let me know. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-free content use
[edit]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically User:Jking/sandbox2, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hello! You have commented out two images from the infobox on my sandbox page as noted above. I did not upload either image as they are both on Wikipedia. Neither image is of a living person. One is a screenshot of Ranorex Studio software and the other is the Ranorex logo. The sandbox page that you edited was created as a duplicate of the original page, and contains proposed changes for the Ranorex page that are pending COI review. Given that both images currently exists on the Ranorex page in Wikipedia, I am not sure why they are an issue on my sandbox page. Are the logo and screenshot also at risk of deletion from the original page? Could you clarify what, if anything, needs to be done with regards to the use of these images? It seems to me that the Ranorex logo should qualify for inclusion under the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos use and that the screen shot also qualifies based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches Thanks! Jaking01 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files, non-free content cannot be used (i.e., displayed) in your user sandbox. Removing the files from your sandbox does not mean that the files have been nominated for deletion and does not affect the non-free use of the files in any articles and should not affect any COI review. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask as WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC.
- Finally, if you have copied-and-pasted an entire article into your sandbox to work on proposed changes, you should be aware of WP:CWW. In some cases, proper attribution may be required or it might possibly be considered a copyright violation per WP:ATTREQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Thanks for the prompt reply. If I read it correctly, you are saying that the images are fine in the article space but not in the sandbox, which is why you commented them out rather than deleting them. When I saw the images were missing the first time, I thought that I had made a mistake in building the article, so in removing the commenting, I wasn't intentionally reverting your changes. It was only today when I went to the history of the article that I saw your edit summary there. When another editor (hopefully) moves my changes back to the article, they just need to know to re-include the images. I will add that note on my COI request so they don't miss it. Also, regarding copyright, WP:ATTREQ states: "If a user wishes to copy all or part of an article to work on in userspace, he or she should use an edit summary like creating page with content copied from revision 123456789 of article title" -- and that was done with the original copy, although not with that exact wording as I was unaware of the exact wording at the time. But you'll see it in the edit summary of the history where the copy occurred. TLDR - I think all is okay now, but let me know if not. Also, as an interested editor, would you be willing to review these changes for inclusion in the original article? As I'm sure you know, these types of requests can languish unreviewed for months. I would really appreciate it!
- My only concern had to do with the non-free image; I was not aware of any COI issue. If your proposed changes are added to the article, the files can be restored if their "new" use still complies with WP:NFCCP. Non-free use is not automatic, so you may need to revise the relevant non-free use rationales accordingly to clarify things. You are not totally prohibitted from editing the article as explained in WP:COIADVICE, so a simple syntax tweat to re-display the file should be fine for you to do. Adding a completely new file, however, might require an edit request.
- As for WP:CWW, my comment was just meant to be some general information, I wasn't accusing you of anything. Lots of people copy-and-paste article content into their sandboxes, and most do not give proper attribution. Your edit sum seems fine to me, but it might be better in the future to add a link to source article to your edit sum.
- As for your COI edit request, it might be better for you to be more specific as to what you want to change. You're basically asking someone to look at both the current version and your proposed version and compare them just by reading. It also means they will have to have multiple browser windows open and keep switching from one to another to figure out what might have been changed. Edit requests tend to be much easier to deal with when what they are worded as "Change X to Y", "Add this image to this section", Add this source for this sentence", etc. as explained in WP:PER. You can use bullet points or numbers to differentiate the items you want changed thus making it possible for the request to be partially filled by one or multiple editors. Try and remember that all editors are volunteers and those trying to answer such requests may not want to take the time to try and figure out things that are vaguely worded given the backlog of requests. Such requests often are declined simply because they are not specific enough. You can ask for more help with this type of thing at WP:COIN if you like or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. The editors in WikiProject Computing almost surely know much more about the subject matter than I do and they would be better able to help you, especially with the page move request you've made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Thanks for the prompt reply. If I read it correctly, you are saying that the images are fine in the article space but not in the sandbox, which is why you commented them out rather than deleting them. When I saw the images were missing the first time, I thought that I had made a mistake in building the article, so in removing the commenting, I wasn't intentionally reverting your changes. It was only today when I went to the history of the article that I saw your edit summary there. When another editor (hopefully) moves my changes back to the article, they just need to know to re-include the images. I will add that note on my COI request so they don't miss it. Also, regarding copyright, WP:ATTREQ states: "If a user wishes to copy all or part of an article to work on in userspace, he or she should use an edit summary like creating page with content copied from revision 123456789 of article title" -- and that was done with the original copy, although not with that exact wording as I was unaware of the exact wording at the time. But you'll see it in the edit summary of the history where the copy occurred. TLDR - I think all is okay now, but let me know if not. Also, as an interested editor, would you be willing to review these changes for inclusion in the original article? As I'm sure you know, these types of requests can languish unreviewed for months. I would really appreciate it!
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Nomination of Ranorex GmbH for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ranorex GmbH is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranorex GmbH until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Review request
[edit]@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for your participation in the recent discussion regarding deletion of the Ranorex GmbH page. As you may know, the admin involved originally turned that page into a redirect, and then submitted it for deletion review at my request. This action was initiated in response to a COI edit request to merely update the page, that I submitted per Wikipedia policy. The page survived deletion but in greatly reduced form. That same admin also nominated the Ranorex Studio page for deletion. After neither page was deleted, he added a very negative summary about Ranorex Studio to that page. There are of course, valid reasons to post negative information as long as it is presented in a neutral POV. But I am concerned that this particular admin may not have a neutral POV toward the article. In addition, I believe the content that he posted may violate copyright, because it quotes a paid research article from Forrester. It's impossible to read the content of the Forrester report without paying for it, so there is no way to either confirm the information quoted or see if there is any positive information in the Forrester article that should have been included to represent a balanced summary of the research. Would you be willing to look at the current page and determine whether there is an issue either with copyright or neutral POV that should be addressed? Or could you recommend a better way that I should proceed? Jaking01 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)