Jabailey1

Help me!

I apologize if this is a duplicate. I tried asking this question once before but looking for more information I think I may have used the wrong tag and I;m not sure anyone will see the version.

I moved this page from my sandbox into the main space. I got a confirmation back that the page had been moved. However I am unable to find the artile when I search Wikipedia for it. I added it to the Bill Bradley (disambiguation) to see if that was part of the problem, but this doesn't help either.

When I checked my sandbox there was a red alert giving me several option. I chose to remove the tag user page from the space.

I still cannot find the article when I search for it. Am I missing a step here?

I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you very much.

Jabailey1 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved it back to User:Jabailey1/sandbox. You have tried to move it to a number of places inside the Wikipedia "project" namespace which is not meant for articles. This is likely why you cannot find it. Until you familiarize yourself more on how to properly edit Wikipedia I would not recommend moving it to the article namespace as any mistakes made will be scrutinized and could possibly lead to a deletion process especially since it appears you are related to this person and you have a conflict of interest. I would recommend you submit the article through the articles for creation review process and to use the WP:TEAHOUSE to ask any editing questions that you may have. Mkdw^talk 05:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like assistance to resolve an issue I have with the message above. It includes the phrase "since it appears you are related to this person and have a conflict of interest." As it happens, I am neither related to nor acquainted with Bill Bradley, the subject of this article. I am frankly astonished the Mkdw came to this conclusion and believe that whatever vague impression he/she formed is an inadequate ground for rejection of the article. It cannot, I think, have been the result of any serious review of the article since it is neutral in tone, verifiable, and contains no original research. I have searched Wikipedia for a mechanism to appeal this decision and have only come up with the arbitration process which seems extreme at this stage. Also as you will note, there is no other substantive reason for the rejection other than the vague statement that "you have tried to move it to number of places inside the Wikipedia "project" namespace which is not meant for articles." I think a review of the history will reveal that this is simply not the case. Even if it were indeed the case, it seems to me that any mistake in moving the article does not constitute grounds for rejecting the article itself. Nor does it imply any unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's guidelines for creating articles.

To be blunt, I am astonished at just how arbitrary this action and would like to request some guidance as to how to proceed from this point.

Jabailey1 (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people misjudge someone to have a COI. I've certainly done it myself. I don't know what made Mkdw think you were related to Mr. Bradley, but you could ask at User talk:Mkdw. It's not a decision anyone made that will be much likely to adversely affect you editing, though. If you'd been reported at some noticeboard for it, it's required that you be notified, and not even a bot has done so, so you're likely in the clear. It was just a warning anyone could have placed on your user talk page here, and it's not really some sort of official declaration. Mkdw warned you about it because, since he thought you had a COI, people with COIs are discouraged from directly editing the topics they have a COI with as they could be too promotional in their edits.

As for rejection on the grounds of it being in the wrong namespace, you are correct that that shouldn't really factor in. The problem with articles outside of article space is if they STAY that way, and you've tried very hard to make sure they aren't staying in a namespace that is never okay with articles (that is, the Wikipedia one). You did move it twice to project namespace, and the appropriate location is mainspace, indicated by (Main) in the move dialog. You might try submitting your article through WP:Articles for creation, to place it under review by others (if it's not ready for mainspace, they'll point out errors for you to fix) and perhaps get the help of someone more experienced in the move to mainspace. - Purplewowies (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jabailey. I'm not entirely sure what prompted Mkdw to assume you were related to Bradley (possibly a mis-remembering of your username between pages? Bradley ≠ Bailey, but they could appear similar at a glance). I've linked his username so that he'll be aware of this discussion, and may choose to comment further. I would add, though, that we do deal with an extraordinarily large number of users who are only here to add an article about their company, band, favourite aunt or - of course - themselves, and speaking as someone who deleted a lot of these, one does get a little jaded in assessing them from time to time. Blame it on a lack of coffee or an off-day, but I think all that's happened here is that Mkdw has jumped to a conclusion that, as it turns out, wasn't correct. Certainly there's no need for you to make an appeal against the claim; we're generally happy to take your word on whether you're related to the subject or not.

As far as the article goes, I don't see any glaring issue with it; it is, I'm afraid, rather non-neutral, but not to an extent that couldn't be fixed through regular editing. The sourcing isn't perfect (you've got at least a couple of sources in there that wouldn't meet the guidelines for reliability), but again, that's fixable - there's enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article, and that's what counts. I would encourage you to move it to mainspace (note: not project space, prefixed with "Wikipedia" on the Move screen, but to mainspace, prefixed with "(Article)" on the Move screen. Don't worry, lots of people make that mistake the first time) so that other editors can work on it as well. Thanks for improving Wikipedia, and I hope you'll continue editing here. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay let's take a step back here because the "situation" has been largely misinterpreted. @Jabailey1: you submitted a help request because you had thought you had "moved [User:Jabailey1/sandbox] from my sandbox into the main space". You had not and instead moved it into a place in Wikipedia that is more or less meant for the maintenance of the encyclopedia. This was largely the reason why you could not find it when you were doing a search of the articles. Hence why I provided you with the link Wikipedia "project" namespace which clarifies that. Think of it as there being two folders: one called the "article space or main space" and one called "the project space / maintenance". You had moved it into the project folder. I assisted you by moving your draft article back into your sandbox. That is simply all I did so when the time was right you could move it into the actual main space. I did not review your article nor did I decline it. There was no "decision" to be appealed. If you want your article to stay in the project space I can move it back but it's really not the appropriate place and would likely be deleted or someone else would come along and move it back into your sandbox. I then gave you some advice after very briefly looking at your article (advice that you can choose to ignore). For starters I noticed there were some problems with the references. Most of the information is cited from epicbillbradley.com which I take to be Bill Bradley's personal website. If you read more about WP:V you will notice that you largely need independent and reliable sources for information on biographies of living people. I also noticed that he has never won a major competition which under our guidelines for WP:ATHLETE is generally major criteria. There are exceptions and you can read through to see if the person meets those guidelines. I hesitated to move it to the article main space because once doing so the article is considered "published" as opposed to a draft. Once in the main space if another editor feels the subject does not meet the guidelines (which may simply be a matter of not being written well enough or having a reliable source that would check off a certain criteria) the article could possibly be deleted. At presence if you remove all the epicbillbradley.com references and race results etc., it is my personal opinion that the subject does not necessarily meet the guidelines and would need more work to be done to do so. If I had randomly come across this article outside of a help request I would likely nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD and suggest the editor userfy it to their user space to continue to work on it. I won't because I'm now "involved" and it may seem like I'm trying to prove a point if I did. There's no rush and better to take your time and learn the ropes than have your work possibly deleted. Lastly, I mentioned the conflict of interest because of the promotion tone of the article. You may dispute this but that's how it seemed to me. I thought you might be related to the subject in a professional capacity because the images you uploaded (example: File:Bill Bradley.jpg) are from "Mariko Pitts, Rhino Nine Public Relations" and you state you've had the copyright released to you. It would help if you could show that the copyright to those images have in fact been released to you for use on Wikipedia from Rhino Nine Public Relations as copyright violations are problematic on Wikipedia. Either in a letter or an email and sent through WP:OTRS is the usual way to go -- though I am not really an expert on how the image copyright release thing is handled here. Sometimes images like that are deleted because of copyright violations etc. I also noticed some information included about this person that is not available on this website or the sources provided that someone who may know him personally would be able to include. It could simply be that you hadn't provided a source where that information is readily available but these are generally signs of someone at a PR firm writing a promotional article about their client which we get a lot on Wikipedia. If I had firmly thought there was a promotional intent or more behind your edits I would have likely filed some report on a notice board or CSD'd the article which I did not. This led me to my final recommendation which has been mirror by others that you could try and actually go through a review process where people can give you thorough feedback on your article before it's moved into the main space. Keep in mind that no review process has been done nor any "decision" to decline it at all. I hope that clears up some questions and you are less "astonished" by my comments which really was my attempt to help you in your original help question. Yunshui is a really great person for further advice in article writing if the WP:TEAHOUSE doesn't suit you. I wouldn't use the {{help}} template too often as now you've been pointed in the right direction for editorial advice. Cheers and happy editing. Mkdw^talk 18:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hallo there Jabailey1 (talk),
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry to see that you are looking for help: please consider reading "Do not bite the newcomers", Third opinion" and "Request for comments". I hope this can help.   M aurice  10:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Diana Alouise

Hi, I'm Fluffernutter. Jabailey1, thanks for creating Diana Alouise!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please read our reliable sourcing guidelines. Because most of your article was based on sources that did not or could not verify the claims the article made, I had to remove a large portion of the article's content.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

removed birth date of Jim McCormick

In an edit from 3 July 2013 you removed the 15 April 1956 birth date from the Jim McCormick (author) article, and marked the edit as m with no further comment. That's not a great use of the "minor edit" flag. The date doesn't seem to have a solid source. Is that perhaps why you made this silent deletion? It appears you did a lot of work on the article originally. I also thank you for those efforts. — MaxEnt 17:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I put it back in, flagged as citation-needed. Please feel entirely free to remove it again, supplying your justification in the edit comment. — MaxEnt 17:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jabailey1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jabailey1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dean Hohl for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dean Hohl is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Hohl until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edwardx (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Diana Alouise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diana Alouise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Alouise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ron Taylor (author)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ron Taylor (author), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jabailey1/new article name here

A tag has been placed on User:Jabailey1/new article name here requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)