User talk:Jessika Folkerts

Greetings...

Hello, Jessika Folkerts, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too!) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Saadé

I added some references to Jacques Saadé. Could you please take another look at the article? I think it shows notability now. --Eastmain (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Centre national de la recherche scientifique

Please see Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts. This article is not an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. At this point you must go through the AfD procedure. See you there. CapnPrep (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jessika Folkerts for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. I note that this "accusation" emanates from someone who is the author/object of an article the deletion of which has been requested.

Deletion nomination to make a point

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as you did when you nominated Centre national de la recherche scientifique for deletion. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also added a PROD tag to Peter L. Hurd, an article that has been through AfD. This is not acceptable behaviour. Any further disruption will cause you to be blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that this article on Centre National De la Recherche Scientifique lacks references, must be improved or removed. As for the article which had resisted AfD I did not know that it did, and think that the references are spurious because they amalgamate own works and third-parties references. For me it is a vanity article close to self-promotion. I have much respect for Wikipedia's policies. My role as editor is to let them be applied, which includes quality of references. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"vanity article close to self-promotion"? Note: that my one, and only, edit to the page Peter L. Hurd (14 June 2007) was to nominate it for deletion on the grounds that I am not notable, which I still believe to be the case). Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jessika Folkerts, I frankly think there is a significant weight of evidence that you have targeted articles related to specific users you had issues with. However, if you plan to respect Wikipedia's policies in the future, then I see no need for further action at this time. My one request is that you look at my comments when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre national de la recherche scientifique. It identifies some problems with the nomination, and gives suggestions on how to deal more positively with articles lacking references. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do as requested. I will target any user that uses Wikipedia to promote himself. I confirm that in my opinion this article is spurious. I am surprised to see the comments of this user here again. I am not forced to edit an article if I find it too bad for this. He apparently spends his time on Wikipedia looking after his contradictors. Best wishes, --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not think of yourself as "targeting" anyone. Instead, think of yourself as trying to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes this does mean deleting articles that are inappropriate (e.g. because of self-promotion), but it never means going after other users. Certainly your comments are misplaced in regard to the Peter L. Hurd article, which you can see from the contribution history has never been edited by User:Pete.Hurd except to nominate it for deletion. Your accusations of self-promotion are spurious, and if you continue to make them despite evidence to the contrary, they will constitute a personal attack. Until you become more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I strongly recommend you stick to adding neutral, verifiable content to articles rather than trying to solve "problems" like this. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, using the word "targeting" was certainly inappropriate. However, the tone you are yourself using is far from neutral, even threatening, which is inappropriate as well. The use of inverted commas or procedural arguments is more intimidating than convincing. You may not dictate my opinion on this article which is the following. - This article is distressing. The academic interest of this socio-biology of the fingers is anecdoctic. The references are spurious, mixed with an overwhelming number of own works. When you click on some links, nothing clear comes out. Some sources cited are not credible scientifically speaking. And what is the encyclopedic interest of the last paragraph on the joys and the pains of the concerned? The use of a personal photo is contrary to WP policy regarding conflict of interest. For me, it is a vanity article, but it does not need to have been written or edited by the concerned for this.

Sorry but it is my opinion. The interest of Wikipedia is to publish original, non-partisan quality articles on important things or people.I will try to improve quality through positive additions to articles as you suggested and will take a closer look at the Wikipedia policies. Best wishes, --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result of sockpuppet case

I have decided not to take any action regarding the sockpuppet case noted above on this page. Please be careful to follow all site policies. Thank you. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]