Open main menu


Contents

False AccusationsEdit

Hello. In the interest of being amicable yet straightforward, I recommend you being more cognizant of accusations you throw out to other editors. Your COI assessment of myself is based on flawed information obviously conducted without a robust background review. A lot of us do want to contribute information to pages we have an affinity for and/or association with, but that does not necessarily imply a malevolent COI as you have suggested in my situation. If an editor is associated with a page, yet follows all associated guidelines and policies in order to ensure neutrality and accuracy, I think that should be commended. Throwing out accusations will not get you anywhere and will frankly make you appear malicious. Moving forward, I hope you will justify any bold claims you make against other individuals, and remove the COI tag against me on the U of Calgary page once you have reviewed my edits and seen that nothing I have written violates NPOV. Shahroze (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shahroze: thanks for reaching out. I appreciate that editors may have their specific areas of interest and focus their editing on those areas. This can be specific articles or more broadly a number of articles on specific topics. That is totally fine and probably quite common. Regardless if someone makes edits on only a few articles or on on many articles, editors should be mindful of balance in those articles and in related articles. I see you have been editing the article about University of Calgary since 2006. According to xtools [1] the vast majority of your edits are on that article. You have added 34,112 bytes and removed 4,495 bytes in 259 edits. With 40% of edits on that page, you are the main editor ([2]). In our conversation about TEC Edmonton, you have declared that you are or have been a student at that university. Conflicts of interest can have may forms. They may be subconscious or be intentional. COI is different to paid editing, which is for reward and I have no reason to believe you are rewarded. However, in the same way as WP guidelines discourage writing about oneself, one's place of work or competitors, this includes any other connected topics. Those guidelines are in place to manage subconscious bias. Given your disclosure and the magnitude of your involvement, I believe the tag is correctly in place.
Let me give an example of such potential subconscious bias. For example, the edit description of the "huge" west campus development clearly indicates awe of some form - aside of that the edit was problematic as copyright violation and had to be redacted. Editing while not logged in to remove COI templated is also indicative. WP:SOCK may also be referred to in this regard. One might get the impression that this "Boost" removal of rankings by Leventio led to removing similar such information from other universities' articles. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to review the article for bias. I'm done arguing about this with you. Also, my logic suggests that if WP:BOOST could apply to one article I think its only fair it applies to the rest, or none at all. The U of C is not only university that I'm associated with, and I have removed WP:BOOST violating information from some of those as well. However, as the article for the U of C was quite empty several years ago I took it upon myself to add information and keep it up to date. Maybe contributors should be appreciated more instead of demonized, just a thought. Shahroze (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled grantedEdit

Hi Jake Brockman, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (utc) 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SorryEdit

I was in Spanish wikipedia creating the category and I switched to english wikipedia to see the articles I was going to include and I created accidentally the category here. I am sorry. --Jakeukalane (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jakeukalane: No worries, I thought this would be the case - some accidental posting. No harm done! pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Coupled substitutionEdit

Why did you move my sandbox page over to an article? Coupled substitution It was My draft and it is certainly not ready for publishing. Can you please explain why you would do this? This must be a mistake--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I see why you did this. I used the wrong syntax to make it a user page. I am taking it back out to my sandbox now and asking for a deletion of the page that you inadvertently created. Just suggesting that you could have guessed that I did not mean for that page to be a real page with that type of title. --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Akrasia25: It's back in user space. Could easily have been an article. Check your facts before accusing other editors. I did not create the article. You created it with defective title. It certainly needed a fix, one way or another. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Apple Card

Editor8778 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

AfdEdit

Dear Jake! Please bring Sofia Philosophical Review and Alexander Gungov to AFD. I think both are notable. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pirhayati: That's not what AfD is for. I moved it to draft exactly because of that. They could be notable, but the sources just do not show that. Hence Draft is the right place so that the article can be worked on and correct sources identified to verifiably show notability. The Sofia Philosophical Review article will need independent sources that talk about the journal. Similarly, we need better sources about Gungov. His number of citations seems too low to pass PROF, so will need other coverage for GNG. AfD does not fix content issues. In Draft this can be done.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Sofia Philosophical Review is notable because it is indexed in reliable bibliographic databases and it is mentioned in the sources.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pirhayati: That may be so, but the sources don't show that. The first one is primary and the second one is essentially self-published "PR". The article needs sources which support that SPR is widely cited. Pinging @DGG: for his expertise. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Jake! I provided reference for two of the databases. Can you please bring it back to main space? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I suggest to submit the article for review using the standard AfC process, if not already done so. Another editor will then review the article and move to article space is appropriate.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

MakeYouKnowLoveEdit

Hello Jake. You recently deleted my page for the band MakeYouKnowLove as well as flagged the image I used as in violation of copyright. I have permission to upload the image to wiki commons so I was wondering what steps I could take to unflag that image. Also, MakeYouKnowLove is cited many times on credited wiki pages (Zayn and his discography) and have a number of press stories written about them, yet you said that citations were insufficient. I was wondering what adjustments I could make to the article to make it acceptable for wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeline.doyle (talkcontribs) 10:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Madeline.doyle: Thanks for reaching out. If Wikimedia has received a certification that you own the copyright then an admin will review this and delete the copyvio tag I left on the images. There is no action to be taken for now. An admin will decide after reviewing and remove the flag, if appropriate. This should happen during the course of the day.
As far as the article is concerned, the sources that have been added are, in my opinions, not reliable. As fas as I can see, they are mostly blogs, promo article or advertorials. Please consult WP:RS for what constitute reliable sources and WP:NBAND for criteria for notability. External articles call them "up-and-coming" and "set to shake up 2019" which is usually an indication that notability has not been achieved yet. Have they been signed up by a major label?
I am curious - if you have uploaded some kind of copyright release to Wikimedia, this indicates you might be closely related to the band. Please consult WP:COI and WP:PAID if this is the case.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash 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/1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Four Square cigarettesEdit

Hi Jake,

Greetings,

I have come to know that my Four square cigarette page has been deleted on your suggestion. I would like to tell you that I haven't copied content and I own complete rights of the quora content which is the same as here. Rest I would assure you that content will not promote.

Thanks Tarun

Hi Tarun, many tanks for reaching out. If you hold the copyright, as you state, you are most likely an employee of the cigarette manufacturer or work on their behalf. This constitutes paid editing, which MUST be disclosed according to Wikipedia's terms. Please read the policy carefully and make necessary disclosures. You are, however, strongly discouraged from editing any articles about subjects you have a conflict of interest about. It is never acceptable to publish copyrighted material - this is especially true if this originates from a source you are closely related to. Please note that there are other concerns about the subject which also need to be addressed, such as notability and a lack of independent sources. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Jake Brockman,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jake Brockman".