User talk:Cohler/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jonathan Cohler, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://jonathancohler.com/cohlerbio.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Jonathan Cohler
A tag has been placed on Jonathan Cohler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jonathan Cohler, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Belated welcome
|
Speedy deletion of Jonathan Cohler
A tag has been placed on Jonathan Cohler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. shoy 14:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Cohler! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 871 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Jonathan Cohler - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Notification
This is to notify you that your edits are being discussed here almost-instinct 08:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Unblock request
Cohler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand fully and have read the Wikipedia Sock puppetry policy. I have never damaged or disrupted any pages and I do not intend to do so. When I was blocked 6 years ago it was because I was attempting to switch over entirely to a more anonymous account that didn't contain my name as the username to be more private. I stated so repeatedly in various discussions, but eventually I just gave up from the onslaught. I plan to use only this account from now on.
Accept reason:
At the time you were blocked, it was because you were editing an article, Jonathan Cohler, in violation of WP:COI. If you were unblocked, would you agree not to edit that article directly? You'd still be welcome to suggest edits on the article's talk page. Additionally, you indicate you initially wished to switch to a different account, one that was more anonymous. If we unblock this account, you would then immediately be welcome to switch to a different account, so long as you edit under the same restriction. I want to be clear, this restriction isn't punitive. There are articles on Wikipedia that I can't edit directly, either, because of WP:COI. To other admins; note the blocking admin is no longer active and the SPI investigation indicates much the same, in the original report. --Yamla (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- [[WP:COI] states "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia", however, it does not say that it is prohibited. If you read my previous responses to the various administrators who descended upon me, for lack of a better term, you will see that I never put anything on the page that was untrue, malicious, or inaccurate, indeed, I supplied most of the information that is there. Furthermore, none of the substance as (opposed to form) of what I entered there was ever contradicted by anyone else. Also, I was brand new to Wikipedia at the time and still in the early learning process. I am certainly happy to agree not to put any controversial or disputed information directly on the page and to use the Talk page exclusively for such material, but why are you asking me to agree to something that is not actually in WP:COI namely "not to edit that article directly" when the policy says only "strongly discouraged"? I learned from the experience much about the standards of writing for Wikipedia, and I am happy to abide by all policies. If I am restricted to suggestions only on the Talk page, however, it would take a long time, in some cases forever, for anyone to even see my factual suggestions on the talk page. As you can see the page is extremely well sourced, and virtually all of that came from my work, nobody else's. It has been subject to scrutiny now for 6 years. I understand that I have a conflict of interest in editing the page, there is no question about that. But has the policy WP:COI been changed from "strongly discourage" to "prohibit"? Or is that just being required of me? Or are you saying that if do make edits to the page, however small or uncontroversial, I may have administrators descend upon me once again in rapid succession? If the latter is your point, then I agree with you, but if you are making a different point, I would appreciate some further explanation. Thank you for your time. --Cohler (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)--
- My concern is that, for example, this edit (where you initially created the page) is rather full of marketing speak. That's not at all unusual. As you point out, that was years ago and the page is radically different now. And in any case, it's very common for an autobiography to start off like that. I do expect you now have a good grasp of WP:COI and WP:AUTO and wouldn't make edits like that again. You are correct to point out that WP:COI strongly discourages, rather than outright prohibits, editing that article. It does require that you disclose your COI on such edits. But, okay, I'll stop rambling. My concern is if you edit the article directly, you run the risk of inadvertently violating WP:COI (and WP:PROMO and such like), would then have admins descend upon you, and would be soured by the whole experience. I often wouldn't care, but the article, Jonathan Cohler, is a fairly high quality article and you very obviously have good intentions here (neither of these statements are reliably the case). Okay, so where does that leave us? I'm willing to unblock you immediately (well, when I see your response) if you agree not to edit the article directly. I'm uncomfortable unblocking you if you plan to edit the article directly, but am not ruling it out; as you say, WP:COI strongly discourages but does not prohibit your doing so. I have no issue whatsoever with another admin deciding I'm being too cautious, and lifting the block. And I'm certainly happy to consider an unblock under terms somewhere in between "no-editing-article" and "free reign", if you have any ideas. --Yamla (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, when I created the page in 2008, I simply uploaded the standard bio from my website and licensed it with a free license for use by Wikipedia. I assumed at the time, incorrectly, as I now know that since that was my official bio from my official website that it would be what Wikipedia wanted. At that time, having just created my Wikipedia account, I did not realize there was a policy against autobiography or promotional language and so on. I am now fully aware of that, and as you note, no "promo" language has existed on the page for nearly a decade, and everything is heavily sourced (I might say moreso than just about every other biography of a living musician that I have seen). If you look at the editing history, you can clearly see that all of my edits were constructive and information based, and none were destructive or meant to falsify or damage the quality of the page, which is what the WP policies are meant to protect after all. Would you be agreeable if I were to agree that I would make no controversial or unsourced changes directly to the page--those would go on the talk page--and for any direct changes to the page, I would indicate on each and every such change that I am the subject of the page? (btw what is the best way to make that indication? Or is it obvious if the user name is "Cohler"?) Thank you for your help and understanding on this. --Cohler (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's acceptable to me. I've lifted your block. If you wish, you may now stop editing with this account and start editing with another. Or you may keep this account if you prefer. You don't want to edit with two accounts at once, as I'm sure you are aware. Note that WP:SOCK has tightened up quite somewhat since you were blocked. As to the best way to indicate that you are the subject, the key thing is to keep to the spirit of the rule. It should be clear to other editors that you are the subject. I'd suggest (I'm subject of this article) in your edit summaries, but I don't want to be overly prescriptive here. Just relying on your username is possibly insufficient, as a lot of people pick usernames when they are fans of a person (this is frowned upon and when we see it happen, we make them change their username, but it still happens). Anyway, it's very clear to me from this extensive discussion that you plan to edit in good faith and openly and honestly, so I'm not particularly worried. If in doubt, raise it on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, when I created the page in 2008, I simply uploaded the standard bio from my website and licensed it with a free license for use by Wikipedia. I assumed at the time, incorrectly, as I now know that since that was my official bio from my official website that it would be what Wikipedia wanted. At that time, having just created my Wikipedia account, I did not realize there was a policy against autobiography or promotional language and so on. I am now fully aware of that, and as you note, no "promo" language has existed on the page for nearly a decade, and everything is heavily sourced (I might say moreso than just about every other biography of a living musician that I have seen). If you look at the editing history, you can clearly see that all of my edits were constructive and information based, and none were destructive or meant to falsify or damage the quality of the page, which is what the WP policies are meant to protect after all. Would you be agreeable if I were to agree that I would make no controversial or unsourced changes directly to the page--those would go on the talk page--and for any direct changes to the page, I would indicate on each and every such change that I am the subject of the page? (btw what is the best way to make that indication? Or is it obvious if the user name is "Cohler"?) Thank you for your help and understanding on this. --Cohler (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- My concern is that, for example, this edit (where you initially created the page) is rather full of marketing speak. That's not at all unusual. As you point out, that was years ago and the page is radically different now. And in any case, it's very common for an autobiography to start off like that. I do expect you now have a good grasp of WP:COI and WP:AUTO and wouldn't make edits like that again. You are correct to point out that WP:COI strongly discourages, rather than outright prohibits, editing that article. It does require that you disclose your COI on such edits. But, okay, I'll stop rambling. My concern is if you edit the article directly, you run the risk of inadvertently violating WP:COI (and WP:PROMO and such like), would then have admins descend upon you, and would be soured by the whole experience. I often wouldn't care, but the article, Jonathan Cohler, is a fairly high quality article and you very obviously have good intentions here (neither of these statements are reliably the case). Okay, so where does that leave us? I'm willing to unblock you immediately (well, when I see your response) if you agree not to edit the article directly. I'm uncomfortable unblocking you if you plan to edit the article directly, but am not ruling it out; as you say, WP:COI strongly discourages but does not prohibit your doing so. I have no issue whatsoever with another admin deciding I'm being too cautious, and lifting the block. And I'm certainly happy to consider an unblock under terms somewhere in between "no-editing-article" and "free reign", if you have any ideas. --Yamla (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- [[WP:COI] states "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia", however, it does not say that it is prohibited. If you read my previous responses to the various administrators who descended upon me, for lack of a better term, you will see that I never put anything on the page that was untrue, malicious, or inaccurate, indeed, I supplied most of the information that is there. Furthermore, none of the substance as (opposed to form) of what I entered there was ever contradicted by anyone else. Also, I was brand new to Wikipedia at the time and still in the early learning process. I am certainly happy to agree not to put any controversial or disputed information directly on the page and to use the Talk page exclusively for such material, but why are you asking me to agree to something that is not actually in WP:COI namely "not to edit that article directly" when the policy says only "strongly discouraged"? I learned from the experience much about the standards of writing for Wikipedia, and I am happy to abide by all policies. If I am restricted to suggestions only on the Talk page, however, it would take a long time, in some cases forever, for anyone to even see my factual suggestions on the talk page. As you can see the page is extremely well sourced, and virtually all of that came from my work, nobody else's. It has been subject to scrutiny now for 6 years. I understand that I have a conflict of interest in editing the page, there is no question about that. But has the policy WP:COI been changed from "strongly discourage" to "prohibit"? Or is that just being required of me? Or are you saying that if do make edits to the page, however small or uncontroversial, I may have administrators descend upon me once again in rapid succession? If the latter is your point, then I agree with you, but if you are making a different point, I would appreciate some further explanation. Thank you for your time. --Cohler (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)--
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |