User talk:Jeh/Archives/2016/08

On a different note

Can I email you regarding MS MVP account abuse,I'm sure you're aware of the situation 5 years ago where "tech support" sites claimed MVP status, and an MS Gold partnership was belatedly revoked. Seems it's happening again...

Persons involved have already had 2 previous MVP profiles removed/revoked by MS.122.59.228.92 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies to or is relevant to me, either in general or in any particular. Jeh (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I hoped you could fast track this information onto the right people so appropriate action can be taken, i.e account revocation. Nothing more was meant. I've given this info to our security guys (MS partner) but they might take a long time to do anything.

Feel free to delete the above comment when replying if you like. 122.59.228.92 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry but I have no connections that would help fast-track anything like that. Jeh (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks anyway. 122.59.228.92 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC) {{Done}}

Revision about Gobo "lighting"

Hi, About the revision of my contribution on Gobo(lighting), I know that to produce a glass gobo we can use only one of this (two) methods. I think that some informations about production's methods could be important. Is there some other way to add this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ENG 077 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read the big yellow box on my talk page, as well as the bright green box that appeared when you edited my talk page:

Discussions of article content belong on that article's talk page, not here!

This is a discussion about article content and therefore belongs on the article talk page. Thank you for your understanding. Jeh (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

see activistrep talk page re Pacifica and KPFK pages

some of us are less computer savy than others but still have valuable information anyhow.

so thanks is all you are willing to receive on your talk page ? huh ?

your agreement with stereorock - who until the last talk msg had NOT clearly left information but he easily left links to decipher - and has now provided some of his views -- has insured that more of my work for Wikipedia is not necessary . that's nice. Activistrep (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)activistrep

*sigh* No, "thanks" are not the only thing welcome here. But the point stands that NO discussion of article content should take place here (or on any other user's talk page). That's not my opinion, that's per WP:TALK. It's because a discussion on one user's talk page will likely be seen only by that user and the person who started the discussion.

Whereas if the discussion occurs at the article talk page, other editors who are watching the article page can be aware of and participate in the discussion - which is as Wikipedia intends.

Similarly, if you have a problem with another editor, my talk page isn't the place to bring it up, regardless of where you think I stand on matters. (I don't understand why that isn't obvious. What do you expect me to do about it?) As with content disputes there are numerous places on WP to report "other editor is behaving badly" - most people go straight to WP:ANI, though the instructions on that page will suggest trying other venues first.

("he easily left links to decipher". Yeah, clicking on wikilinks is SO difficult.)

If you want to put material on WP such as you've been trying to add to the Pacifica and KPFK pages, you don't need to be "computer savy" [sic]. You don't even need to be particularly Wikipedia-savvy; if you provide not-well-formatted references, others will fix them up for you. But you absolutely must have solid references from reliable sources for it, especially for anything that talks about living persons (see WP:BLP). I and many other editors will revert BLP-violating material with no more explanation than "WP:BLP vio", and no more explanation or justification is needed. Jeh (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

NEMA

to be brutally frank, the NEMA article should have been A7'd long ago. All of its sources were NEMA's own website. The article did not assert any sort of notability whatsoever. So I deleted it, as I am permitted to do.

You are welcome to create a new version of the article, provided that you can supply sources to substantiate statements re: notability. DS (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: NEMA is hardly a non-notable organization. I would think some notice of impending deletion, to give interested parties seven days or so to provide sources prior to deletion, would have been appropriate. But what's done is done. Could you restore it to a subpage under my account? Jeh (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, here you go. DS (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Jeh (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way -- it's not there forever. If you don't at least try to improve it, it'll get deleted again. DS (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm on the road at the moment. It won't be tomorrow. It may not be this week. However, I do have a private copy. Jeh (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jeh, are you going to update NEMA wiki page and post? Is there any way I can help? (I work at NEMA) Luciusism (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Luciusism: What we need are sources for the claims in the article, other than from NEMA itself, to establish "notability" per Wikipedia's requirements. Please see notability and also WP:RS for more info. Jeh (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jeh: Thanks! I passed along to our communications department so they can work on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.65.99 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)