User talk:Jimnelson2025

{{unblock|I live in China and use a VPN}} {{checkuser needed}} Hi, your request will need to be evaluated by a checkuser. The template on the left will notify them that you need assistance. Mike V • Talk 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing the turn off your VPN to edit, then that would take care of things. Mike V • Talk 05:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jimnelson2025, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! LowLevel73^(talk) 08:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About "100 most influential americans"

Hello Jimnelson2025! I've noticed that you have just started to write your first article, 100 most influential americans. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, your edit are very welcomed! Before embarking in your journey, I have two little suggestions that could save you a lot of time or issues:

Writing an article containing a rank or list of 100 most influential Americans would require a lot of research (that you have already started) and a final way to decide who is more influential than others.

Wikipedia has articles like List of highest mountains of Germany, because it's possible to measure a mountain in a quite precise way, or List of highest-grossing films, because money can be counted. In each case you get numbers, and numbers can be compared in an objective way.

On the contrary, articles like "The best...", "The most influential...", "The most successful..." will sooner or later force you to take subjective decisions. This is something that Wikipedia calls original research and the encyclopedia can't accept it.

So, I have a first suggestion for you: before starting to collect information and writing a long article, be super-sure that the topic of the article is compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. This could save to you a lot of time. In the welcome box that I've published above, you'll find some links that will provide to you the basic information about how Wikipedia works and what kind of contents are compatible with an encyclopedia. If you have any question, just ask at the Teahouse: it's full of friendly and helping editors!

I've noticed that you have also created the article in the Draft "namespace", here: Draft:100 most influential Americans. That's good! My second suggestion to you is, in fact, to develop any new article in the Draft space or in you personal sandbox, not in the main space. Very rough drafts published in the main space can be deleted, while the Draft namespace is perfect for... drafts!

I hope that these suggestion will help you. Happy editing! LowLevel73^(talk) 09:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 100 most influential americans

The article 100 most influential americans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subjective list

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 22:20, Sunday, November 24, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Pneumatech factory explosion and fire in Wuxi China!!

May 21, 2015 just happened. I have picture

Promotional additions

Hello, Jimnelson2025. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Predictive analytics ‎, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest- Transparency

I own www.shigroupchina.com It helps Western Companies active in China to get trustworthy talent. Recruiting and Executive Search Industry

Recently I made edits to small data and predictive analytics. Our company had used these Wikipedia articles and given credit in the past as they relate to our work in small data.

I found the [Small Data] article was biased and hard to read recently. One of the criticisms was that it was just about that guys recently published books. I added our recruiting experience as it made the site less narrow in its presentation of the material, and I felt our experience would benefit readers with small data.

I did not know how to say that this was my company. I certainly was not trying to bias the site or do something secret. I was trying to make the site more professional and balanced.

I felt the [predictive analytics] site was way too biased toward algorithms and what those people were selling. I knew first hand that my recruiters were experts at small data predictive analytics that are understandable, so I added that piece as felt it made the site better and more balanced.

Jimnelson2025 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put suggested additions in [small data] and [predictive analytics] to avoid COI. Glad to be more knowledgeable about how to contribute. I think both contributions are good for these pages. I will wait to see what happens. Jimnelson2025 (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Joshua

Book of Joshua has many references most of which cannot be traced at all. It has a large bibliography which does not connect to the references.

I do not know where to begin to fix that big a mess. Thoughts anyone? Jimnelson2025 (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hi Jimnelson2025. This is a courtesy notice that I undid your edits at Matthew the Apostle because they appeared to contain original research. Please review WP:NOR and seek consensus on the article's talk page. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel 2, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Persian and Greek Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your recent editing history at Daniel 2 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My email

Hello Jim. I got a notification that you'd sent me an email, but that email address is not longer in use and I can't access it. If this is about a specific article and about editing, the best thing is to put a comment on the article talk page (and maybe notify me on my personal talk page, otherwise I might not notice it). If it's about something esle, but not too personal, you can leave a message on my personal talk page. All best. PiCo (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kosciuszko statue at West Point.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kosciuszko statue at West Point.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]