JABPP

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the Sandbox.
• For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 14:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD of Romney Lyle Pearce

An article that you have been involved in editing, Romney Lyle Pearce, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romney Lyle Pearce. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --VegaDark 08:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Well, it's been deleted, and I'm pretty disappointed. I guess I shouldn't be since this was my first original entry to Wikipedia. Still, I guess my idea of worthy and yours are different. (SIGH!) JABPP 06:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD of Romney Lyle Pearce

Just read the comments of the researchers who opted to delete this entry. VERY disappointed. One didn't apparently understand that "autobiography" means a book or story written about one's SELF.(Even the byline of the author's name, exactly the same as wiki entry name, no Jr. or any such, didn't give it away, apparently.)

Further disappointed that wiki researchers felt that a search of newspaper history dating back to 1988 (five years AFTER Pearce's death) was sufficient research. JABPP 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Whitehead Orchestra

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Chuck Whitehead Orchestra, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. If you have any comments, please respond on my talk page. Sue H. Ping 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JABPP. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page New Times (weekly), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, New Times (weekly), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, as the recipient OF the awards I added, I don't know what else I need to use for citation. Yes, it's me. But who else is going to add this to the New Times SLO listing if NOT someone from New Times SLO? Do I have to give the information to someone ELSE, then ask them to cite....me as their source for adding me to the list of award recipients at this publication? JABPP (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If everyone added content to Wikipedia based on their own knowledge, it would be anarchy. Wikipedia only remains useful if the information people add is verifiable. It is a core policy that readers should be able to access citations that enable them to verify what is written - see WP:Verifiability. If the information you added already exists in a published, independent, reliable source then you can add it yourself, though ideally you would make an WP:EDITREQUEST given your personal involvement. If there's no published source that verifies what you've written, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Generally, it is better not to write about subjects you are personally involved in at all. If it is sufficiently significant, someone will add it in due course without any involvement from you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it depends upon the source. I DO understand the mayhem that could ensue were just anyone adding, but I'm citing, yes, myself, but I'm a journalist who earned her degree from a credible university in the days when we took ethics and law in addition to reporting, etc. The local competing newspaper DID cover the awards, but only the category of award, not the reporters who did the work, so it's not a great source of information. There is no other local media who covered the awards of their competitors. Anyhooooo....this is the second time something credible I've posted has been removed by Wikipedia. The other, also straight from the writings of the person whose bio I posted, was removed because the writing was not widely available. It's a shame. History lost. JABPP (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

And...I've begun working with National Newspaper Association to compile a complete list of their award winners over time. There will be no publication that will cover this effort, so the source would be the NNA itself. Someone will have to compile the list (that may be me). Do they have to post it on their website before it would be considered credible by Wikipedia?

(And you may be thinking: why bother? Award-winning journalists exist at tiny publications who influence the thinking in their small communities. Their work deserves recognition. These awards provide that, and including them in a centralized encyclopedia would be fantastic.) JABPP (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)