User talk:Research83

Welcome!

Hello, Research83, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (May 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh.
To edit the submission, 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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Research83, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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.

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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sionk (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (October 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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:Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards

Wikipedia annoys me with its double standards, too. It does discriminate against academics. Any footballer can have an article after spending a single second on the pitch in a qualifying match. Academics have to leap a high bar. This is because the alleged wisdom of crowds panders to the crowd that makes the most noise. I wish footballers had to be truly notable, too, but it isn't ever going to happen. I applaud the tough standards that academics have to meet in order to deserve articles. I believe that is the way it should be for all people. It will not happen. Fiddle Faddle 18:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (January 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 Primefac was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

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:Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (February 19)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines for academics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh has been accepted

Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 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!

DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Picture Jeroen van den Bergh.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Picture Jeroen van den Bergh.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I just now see this. There is so much info for newcoming editors - it is impossible to click through on everything. The truth is that when the article on Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh was accepted for Wikipedia, there was an Orphan warning added by someone. So I thought to immediately resolve it by looking at a few topics that I worked on and discovered some relevant things related to my work could be added, which I did with all good intentions. These various changes in a very brief time period then gave rise the COI noticeboard discussion. Excellent there is so quick control and feedback.Research83 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, and welcome!

Hello,

I'm afraid I'm writing you before I intended, and so must offer apologies.

Your real identity came to my attention today, and I'm provisionally thrilled you're interested in Wikipedia. The issue is that you seem to want to engage in self-promotion instead of applying your subject matter expertise to the overall content in that area whether it involves you or not. That's something of a WP:Conflict of interest. That said, we have a policy that we should WP:Ignore all rules when the overall project benefits. Personally, when I looked at your work I saw a good faith attempt at article improvements and responsiveness to the community's feedback. As I understand it, we're supposed to ignore rules like WP:COI when doing so improves the project, as I believed you were doing.

Before I reached out to you I wanted to check my understanding, and so posted what was intended to be a "please educate me" thread. Unfortunately, it has become an "examine Research83" thread.

Wikipedia very much needs interested subject matter experts to volunteer time to their overall subject (and not just themselves). Hopefully the review I inadvertently kicked off will not drive you off before you decide if that is something you're interested in.

I'll be glad, even grateful, if I can help you make the decision to stick around and branch out. My talk page is always open. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As also I said on your personal talk page, many thanks for support.Research83 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, There is a way to purge your explicit statement of your real name, if that concerns you. I'm not sure what it is, but if asked, I'll help you find out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can revision delete the diff from non-admin view or it can be entirely oversighted :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Research83. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important note for you

If you continue editing as you have been, without talking back to various editors here, and without responding to, and dealing with, your COI issues, you will end up losing your editing privileges. (Editing Wikipedia is not a right - it is a privilege). So please do talk with us, and please respond to the COI issues. (I looked at your contribs, and you have used a talk page exactly once - here.) We don't like losing experts. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

indenting posts on Talk

when you post a reply on a talk page, please indent your posts. to create one tab, put one colon : in front of your post; for two tabs, put two colons, etc.

like this

and this. make sure it is a colon and not a semicolon - the semicolon also bolds your text. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and patience with me. I put here the link to the page where we had more discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeroen_C.J.M._van_den_Bergh) as it is difficult for me to find always (seems to be hidden or so).Research83 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying here. I am glad you discovered your own Talk page, and are talking back! You can always get to a Talk page by clicking on the "Talk" tab at the upper left corner of any article. You can always get to your own Talk page by clicking on "Talk" at the very very top of any page you are on, next to your username. Wikipedia has a "notification" system that provides notices anytime someone writes on your Talk page, or links to your username like this {{u|Research83}} on article Talk page. When either thing happens, the little square icon next to your username at the very top of the page will turn red and will show the number of notifications there. If you hover your mouse over it or click on it you will see the notifications and you can click on anyone of them to see it in context. Changes to your Talk page will also appear in your Watchlist, which is also in that row at the very top of the page.Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Note I couldn't see who this wrote, only tildes (~) appeared at the end.

It is true, I have discovered my own Talk page. Seems easy but is not.

I now also looked at the other WP articles where I had made changes which you corrected/deleted (see for an explanation of what I did a comment to another editor Sam Walton above). Only one thing I don't understand: why was all the info related to my article criticizing degrowth removed. I can imagine you shorten it, move it elsewhere, or delete any explicit author names from the text. But you are surely aware that the section with criticism in the degrowth article is vague and badly referenced (and various reference that are there are too general, not really about degrowth in particular), and so some of these items don't deserve to be there. The discussion I had added, with a published (and much cited) journal article as evidence, is one of the few concrete, focused criticism of degrowth. It really deserved to have a place in this article. Research83 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the explanation how everything works!Research83 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

sorry i accidentally broke the wikipedia software - i fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Picture Jeroen van den Bergh.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Picture Jeroen van den Bergh.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]