User talk:Janweh64/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with Janweh64. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - ... (up to 100)

Note

Please review WP:TPG. User talk pages (like this one) are for discussing editor behavior. Article talk pages like Talk:Roger Gosden are for discussing article content. In light of that, this was inappropriate, and I have reverted it. Jytdog (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I apologize for my past transgression in anger. But please consider this statement by Justlettersandnumbers "the paid editor puts a mass of inappropriate content here, volunteer editors spend time and effort on making it suitable for the project – and the original author collects the fee." Like you said these types of comments about editor behavior are inappropriate on article talk page.

My voluntary/unpaid contributions are extensive. Please view my edit history. I did not just come here to simply make money. I know WP:AGF does not as a policy apply to COI edits but to assume that a paid "editor's edits and comments are [not] made in good faith" is a mischaracterization of my actions and intentions. It is my belief that Wikipedia's mission and my financial benefit are not mutually exclusive, while they can sometimes in conflict when NPOV is concerned. But POV conflict is part of Wikipedia editing. Please consider warning Justlettersandnumbers in the same manner, as they are also the same editor who placed tags without accompanying discussion.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apropos, would you please unhide the list of those contributions on your user page? Thanks! You say your paid contributions are extensive, but that list isn't very long; is it complete? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My unpaid edits are extensive. The list is absolutely complete. I will unhide it. But can I hide previous month when the time comes that the list grows to long. I was just trying to be organized.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janweh64 thanks for your apology but there was no need; thanks for letting the reversion stand instead of making dramah. I cannot respond to your request at this time. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread that. I was thinking of "Since January 29, 2007, I have been employed as a private contractor by a variety of clients". Is that a typo, then? By the way, I assure you that my comment "the paid editor puts a mass of inappropriate content here" was specifically about the article on Roger Godsen, and specifically aimed at improving it. Which it still needs. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a typo. Thanks. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paul Dibb

On 15 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Dibb, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Paul Dibb formulated an eponymous report of Australia’s defence capabilities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Dibb. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paul Dibb), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approving your own drafts

Wikipedia, for reasons that I just can't understand, tolerates paid/COI editing in draft space. But where exactly do we say that paid editors can then freely move their own drafts into mainspace? As a paid editor, "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". But by creating a draft and then moving it yourself, you are effectively doing exactly that. I've moved Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), Himanshu Khagta, Legs4Africa, Miss Tara and KDDL Limited back to draft space. If and when you think they are ready to be included in this encyclopaedia, please submit them in the normal way. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no paid editing declaration at Draft talk:Credihealth. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are correct. It was a new contract. I only created the draft at 21:24, 15 February 2017. I have added one. When I try to create a talk page before a draft page a bot deletes it. But a declaration is always found on my user page. I will leave the rest for discussion on WP:ANI.

I am impressed by how well you keep your cool and am trying to do the same. Cheers —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of drafts

Please note that drafts should not get put into categories designed for articles, see WP:DRAFTNOCAT. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph: As we say in the restaurant business, "HEARD! Chef!" Cheers —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submissions

Hi! I don't think you should use {{request edit}} to submit a draft for review. There's a specific template, {{AFC submission}}, which will put your article(s) into the AfC queue and, sooner or later, attract the attention of an AfC reviewer. Both queues are backlogged, but I'm not up to date on which is more so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers:I have tried it. Draft:Miles Doleac is stalled in AfC right now. The article is one you reviewed in the past but with an exorbitantly more improved reference section. I asked Winged Blades of Godric to take a second look, but he can't (understandably) make a call, perhaps because there are so many rejections in the past (of submissions by another editor).

But this what I am worried about: I can now be accused of co-opting you into working for me while I am being paid.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are only 700 or so articles in the queue at the moment, and several people working on it. I suggest that waiting patiently might perhaps look better than importuning for instant gratification, and possibly lead to better results in the end. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Do you agree with Swister's accessment in light of the comments I left you here. I believe his judgement is biased like a lot of editors because of paid editing. It is my firm belief that I will not receive any fair assessment this way. This is a second example of prejudice. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) 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/Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike No objections.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur)

Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: KDDL Limited (February 20)

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:

Unconvincing because the sources are still considerably mere announcements, mentions, company quotes or profiles, none of it inherits them automatic inherited notability; the article is too closely mirrored as a company profile.

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:KDDL Limited 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 21:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister I believe I have addressed your concerns by stripping the article leaving only RS that go in depth. I also added 2 interviews on CNBC TV18 and CNBC Awaaz. Please consider WP:NCORP and WP:Systemic Bias. I don't mean that as an accusation, but just something to consider in your decision making.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:KDDL Limited has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:KDDL Limited. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please stop making direct edits to articles where you are being paid. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run, charity-funded project, and paid editors are here on sufferance. Conflicted editors should request changes on the Talk page, not make them directly, because Wikipedia is NOT a promotional vehicle. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG How do I request an edit on a page that does not exist. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, every page has a talk page, it may be blank, but just click Talk and start the discussion. Second: No. I am an admin here, this is what admins are for. You are trying to make money form our charity, and I am here to make sure that does not impose a burden on our volunteer community. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG It seems inappropriate to me that you would do this here when there is a WP:ANI already on this subject. You are an admin. Your intention may not be to threaten, but the effect is still the same. Believe it or not, I am currently frightened. Please use another avenue for addressing this issue more publicly where others may have a chance to comment. I am not comfortable dealing with you directly.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is the correct place to warn you about your promotional editing. My intent is not to threaten, but to warn. And warnings form admins have an element of threat about them, by design, because if you continue to do things after admins warn you not to, then you may be blocked or banned. Making money from tromping things on Wikipedia is kind of evil, so it behoves you to heed such feedback. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG I have been told NOT to use request edits and to instead submit to AfC which I have been doing since the ANI. I do not understand what instigated this formal warning but I believe it is not appropriate if your plan is to use this warning as justification for future action.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:KDDL Limited has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:KDDL Limited. Thanks! NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Miss Tara (February 22)

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

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

being a top 20 finalist in Miss Universe Canada 2009 is not a credible claim to notability!

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:Miss Tara 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicholas Wooldridge (February 22)

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

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

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nicholas Wooldridge 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tara

I think the subject may, barely, pass WP:MUSICBIO#2. If you want to keep it and resubmit it please let Cyp know so they can fix the history (they deleted it at the same instant I was saving it so the history was deleted but not the current revision) If you do not want to keep it just tag it for deletion again or just leave it and I will tag it tomorrow. Jbh ^Talk 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted at almost exactly the same time as the above post) You requested deletion of your article Draft:Miss Tara, but then Jbh said that it might survive the notability requirements after all. Do you still want it deleted? Κσυπ Cyp 20:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley Yes please. I only deleted out of frustration.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyp: per the above would you please undelete the history? Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 20:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jbh Yes, done just as you were asking. Κσυπ Cyp 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicholas Wooldridge (February 22)

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

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

All of the sources provided consist of simply passing mentions of the subject and some quotes. There is no substantive or significant coverage about him as is required by the General notability guidelines. Please see the comments I have made on your other article submissions about minimum sourcing requirements.

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:Nicholas Wooldridge 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.

Jbh ^Talk 20:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Miss Tara has been accepted

Miss Tara, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

Jbh ^Talk 21:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Geronimo Trail Scenic Byway has been accepted

Geronimo Trail Scenic Byway, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move articles back to draft space as you did here [1] it is not helpful and is not necessary. Theroadislong (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong:, the article has not moved. I am proposing a Request for edit.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Go Grrrls has been accepted

Go Grrrls, 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 07:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Geronimo Trail Scenic Byway2 has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Geronimo Trail Scenic Byway2. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Credihealth (February 25)

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 appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unsatisfactory in our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not.

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:Credihealth 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 08:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Any opinion on notability. Because NPOV I can fix. But if you think the company is not notable, I will abandon the article and move on.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the information and sources all show it's simply too soon because the company still needs funding and support, and is not yet established. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was two years ago. The company no longer requires support. It currently operates in conjunction over 50 hospitals. I believe WP:GNG has also been satisfied. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Historian (film) has been accepted

The Historian (film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Janweh64

Hello JanWeh64.. I would like for you to edit The Bahamas Visa Requirements page has well please... I will be traveling soon I would like to be updated on the Countries I'll be visiting. Thank you so much for Time and Patience ! Calvinck3 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Miles Doleac has been accepted

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Quasar G. (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Janweh64. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Jet Set (TV show) (March 4)

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

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not clear how this is notable? Wikipedia requires indepth coverage in reliable sources not mere mentions and primary sources

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:The Jet Set (TV show) 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Miss Tara for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Tara 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/Miss Tara until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyp and Jbhunley: Please comment on AfD above. I no longer care to respond to Guy's directed use of adminship. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is technically WP:CANVASSING so I have commented on my reasoning for passing the article through AFC however I do not feel it proper for me to !vote on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Jbh ^Talk 04:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I don't care what happens to the article. I only feel targeted. It feels like JzG is trying to build a case where none exists. Please see the discussion above with JzG and my request "oversight?" here.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:APPNOTE, this is acceptable use as you have been involved in this article. I did not ask you to vote one way or the other. I only did not like JzG's evaluation of the situation. You will notice the difference between your description and theirs.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on my watch list because I have edited it. My rationale for nomination for deletion is as stated. This is no different from any of the thousands of other articles I have nominated for deletion over the past decade and more. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, if your intentions are truely honorable perhaps you will help me solve this problem you have created for me? —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem, so nothing to solve. I also think it is disingenuous for someone trying to make money form a charity-funded volunteer-run project to cast aspersions on the honour of people with decades of volunteering behind them. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG 20 mins after this statement you attacked one of my voluntary contributions. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You judgement in this matter is compromised by your belief that "Writing for profit is already evil." —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Trying to profit off Wikipedia is evil. That's not at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of George Ronald Richards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Ronald Richards 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/George Ronald Richards until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: George Ronald Richards

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as George Ronald Richards, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/richards-george-ronald-ron-14450, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:George Ronald Richards and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, George Ronald Richards, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:George Ronald Richards. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:George Ronald Richards with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:George Ronald Richards saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find this quite worrying. You have over 4000 edits. In how many other articles have you copied whole sentences directly, verbatim, from the source, as you did in this one? If there are others, it would be helpful if you would list them here. Please regard this as a priority, more important than other things you might be thinking of doing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers I understand this is serious. But this is easily fixable. Are we reading the same report. I have not worked on this for weeks. Perhaps I stopped before I should. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the same report. It shows that somewhere around 70% of the text you wrote was copied directly, sometimes whole sentences at a time, from the source (which is clearly marked as copyright, in case you're wondering). Normally something like this would be speedily deleted as a G12, which would indeed fix it, and easily. Or I could just have removed all but about one sentence of the body text. I chose the more laborious route because of the AfD, and to allow you to rewrite it if you wish. If you decide to do that, please (a) do it on this page, nowhere else; (b) do not copy over or paraphrase any of the existing text (because that defeats the point of the exercise); and (c) leave a note on the talk-page when you're done. But checking through your other edits for similar problems is more important than any of this, please make that your primary aim. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are being ridiculous. If you delete " police officer and ", the phrase " one of seven children of" and ", bricklayer, and his wife " The problem is solved. You are trying to make a case where very little exists. You did not have to blank the whole page just that section. The rest of the report is attributions (citations), his official job titles, and the names of people.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers I am mad you made me doubt myself. But during the process. I found this edit by another user. I am going back to what I was doing. HAPPY HUNTING! —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

You can't fix a copyright violation by changing a few words, as you did here: [2]. I am beginningto doubt your competence. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG Wait deleting copyright violation is not permitted: THIS IS WHAT I HAVE DONE!

@JzG and Justlettersandnumbers: My final result: [3]

You deleted a page that said:

This is a temporary page created because the article at George Ronald Richards is suspected to be a copyright violation. Please work on a substitute article below.
Admins: Please don't delete this page unless you are sure it is no longer needed.

Please reexamine your motives. Your judgement is compromised. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chat a bit?

Hi Janweh64. We haven't interacted much, but I have worked on COI issues for a pretty long while. I would like to talk with you a bit about how you are approaching things. Would you be willing to talk with me?Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I am hesitant but willing. However, I have NO COI involving this above article George Ronald Richards. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have a skype account and could use that to call you (just talking, no video). I have sent you an email to initiate that, if you like. Talking would be better than writing here, for nuance etc. We can of course just write back and forth here if you like. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Check email.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Credihealth (March 7)

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

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:Credihealth 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Janweh64, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]