JeffStryker

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, JeffStryker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Tellyaddict^Talk 18:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern about your username

Hello, JeffStryker, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

• If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Hi noticed you request on thewinchesters talk page, to change your user name you can place a request at Wikipedia:Changing username just follow the instructions. Though given that you've only made 38 edits they will more than likely suggest that you just make a new account and redirect these pages to that. Gnangarra 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Took the words out of my mouth Gnangarra. As he said, it's likely the best path to pursue. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no minimum edit requirement for users to ask for a rename. JeffStryker may file a rename request at any time and will be renamed to any username that complies with our username policy and isn't taken. WjBscribe 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your name change request has been declined. I still think you should change your username, though, so you might want to make another request that isn't so similar. However, if Jeff Stryker is your real name, you can continue to use this name, if you just post a note on your user page saying that you are not Jeff Stryker. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Note that I am not replying for Gnangarra (I wouldn't doubt he holds quite different views to me, seeing as he is an uninvolved closing admin and not someone involved in the earlier investigation) but just as an admin looking on at this. My point of view on the article is well known from the actual AfD debate and I don't intend to repeat it, but I feel I should make the following points:

• Wikipedia works by consensus, a core policy. A decision has been made on said basis to delete the article, therefore it is probably not a good idea to recreate the article in the near term, especially if the grounds for notability were already considered in the AfD. Wikilawyering is also looked down upon.
• You've raised interest in the source of some of the votes being Western Australia, but many of those users were established editors with a long history of voting on Australian AfDs.
• There is some concern that most of the Keep voters are not regulars of Wikipedia, and have in the past been closely associated on one side of a debate on Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) (including persistent harassment by two of the Keep voters on a third party's talk page) - one was even labelled a single purpose account - and the only one not involved with that article (apart from the three IP editors whose only edit was the AfD) uploaded a logo for the company and added it to several sparsely-related articles two months ago. Most links to the article on Wikipedia were put there by User:Outnow and the aforementioned logo uploader.
• The original article was created (and defended) as a WP:COI by User:Outnow, who admitted to being Ian Johnson in several places including this edit. Reasons for establishing the article as stated by the founder clearly violated several points on WP:NOT.
• Your assertion that "admins... decision to delete... is a very drastic course to take". A look at any typical day's log on WP:AFD would find dozens of articles getting deleted every day, some with possibly more claim to note than this organisation. Example: Frank Coletta (Australian Journalist), a nationally known journalist and newsreader within Australia.

Normally WP:CORP's don't even go through AFD, they get deleted almost every minute of every day under Wikipedia's speedy deletion process. I'm still curious as to how so many people with exactly the same viewpoint and information and with a history of collaborative editing several months ago came to find the AfD to begin with considering it was only listed on Sexuality deletion sorting after WJBscribe's vote, which was very late in the piece. Orderinchaos 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

One final note - If the only consideration is that you want to see the article for research purposes or for others to do so, Wikia (an organisation also founded by Jimmy Wales) may be a more appropriate place to host it. Not only could this article be hosted in its present state, it could be expanded, linked to related articles etc, and essays which would completely violate Wikipedia's rules could be openly uploaded there as whoever creates the Wikia for the subject area gets to set the rules. I actually assisted another organisation (an online bank, in fact) to set one of these up and they've found it far more useful than anything they could have set up here because Wikipedia's rules for inclusion are so restrictive. As a student I use two or three non-Wikipedia wiki resources which have all sorts of stuff on theorists that would probably be considered original research here and would fail the reliable sources tests, but is contributed to by eminent professors and students can even leave comments on a section of the article itself as to how useful they found the article or novel ways in which they were able to apply the theories in their own practice (very useful when writing essays!). I would suggest this is an alternative well worth considering. Orderinchaos 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I had spotted the potential WP:COI issue too when I had looked back at the previous AfD debate - but the author made no secret of the fact of his identity at the time and was I thought completely transparent in that first debate. So I didn't find anything untoward there in his openness. It was made clear about that in this debate too but I did not think the authorship of the original wiki article was a significant aspect of this debate. Personally I was not surprised that some users were not frequent visitors, I would be in that class and I was pleased with what what I got from an unexpected find in the Out Now article so had it watched. I will look at what you said about Wikia - it may perhaps be a good option to look at. The geographical issue I really was not that comfortable with, I am sure editors are active all over, but the concensus all coming from one area and then the same area contributing the closing editor as not what I thought made for the best process but that is just how it was here. The issues of people getting tagged as single purpose accounts I find problematic as if a user is not a frequent one and then gets caught up in a single debate then they can find themselves spending unexpected amounts of words and contribs loading up on a single topic. I know I did. The point about deleting seeming drastic was that when in doubt I thought policy was not to delete, I guess the closing admin felt not in doubt and I was hoping there may be some kind of review process that looks at the process and/or the article content. To be honest as I feel personally quite exhausted by the week's events I hoped that there exists an edit forum somewhere that may be able to assist me in getting out what is deemed to WP non-notable content and confirming notable content to a WP standard in the final version of the article as I had left it. Thanks again for the comments. JeffStryker 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I got your message about this AfD. Jeff please take the time to look through my deletion logs, here and my contributions you'll notice that when it comes to AfD I choose to close the more difficult ones, and let others do the easy ones. With this comes criticism and complaints about all kinds vague associations. So what makes a company notable is a many and varied thing, in this case the strongest statement to notability was that "it had offices in Australia and Holland the only such company of this type to do so." this was supported with citation, its a marketing/market research company there are many that have offices in more than one country look at ACNielson (what a horrid article it needs attention) as a comparison has them in over 100 countries(unsourced fact in that article).

OIC has clearly covered most of what you asked so I wont repeat. If you want to build an article do so in userspace say at User:JeffStryker/Sandbox/Out Now Consulting, Once you think you've got notability established get opinions from a couple of users especially those who expressed the delete opinion as they'll be harder to please, alternatively select a couple of admins at random who are closing AfD's as they have better understanding of the policies. Address any concerns they have, then list at WP:DRV linking to the article you've written, DRV is a reversal of the AfD. While your actively working on an article in user space it cant be linked from any articles and it cant be included in any categories. What you can do is write the article, wikify it, add images(except fair use like logo's), list sources. Also most editors respect other editors user space and wont delete or nominate for deletion articles that are under construction, in general terms unless you ask for someones input they wont edit the article either. BTW if you nwould like me toreview the article before taking it to DRV just ask Gnangarra 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra, Thanks for that - sounds like a plan. I must admit to getting caught up in the debate and feel drained by it at this time. Think I will leave it for a few weeks at least. I kept a copy of the background history text from "edit" as one of the wp things I read said to do. If I do that, is there any practical time limit to when it needs to be submitted for DRV? I really like your suggestions about the review before requesting DRV as I really dont want to waste any more of my time or others if it can't be brought up to scratch. WP has usually been a place I got a lot of enjoyment from visiting - and I want it to continue that way. I think this article notable and important, sure, but I understand the need to meet the wp guidelines otherwise it defeats the purpose of having wp as a reference in the first place. One point about Wikia - if I listed the article there on Wikia - as it was in its last incarnation - for the meantime does that somehow prejudice its eligibility for WP DRV, as there seems to be some link between the two wikis but I must confess I could not understand how they relate to each other's content, and whether Wikia page precluded WP article ...Thanks again for the constructive feedback - a better end to an involving week. JeffStryker 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No link of any kind between them - two companies using the same technology that happen to have been started by the same bloke, basically. Orderinchaos 13:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As OIC just said the two are seperate Wikipedia makes its decisions on its policies I assume wikia has its own policies, even between the different language wikipedia policies arent the same. When it comes to DRV it'll be assessed on en.wikipedia policy only. Gnangarra 14:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is clear, I checked over at the DRV guidelines but I could not find an answer to the question: If I do get the article into shape for review, is there any time limit from deletion until when it has to have been put up for review. Meaning, does leaving it a while mean it becomes "out of time" for WP:DRV? And if so, at what point does it become 'too late' for DRV? JeffStryker 17:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to avoid Criteria G4 for speedy deletion which is "recreation of deleted material". As an AfD result generally stands for all time, if the result is keep, a new AfD is required to establish a new consensus, and if the result is delete, a DRV is required. This can be raised at any time if the grounds for review are that the article has been rewritten from the form which failed AfD - longest I've seen is 15 months (and that was a successful review, too) Orderinchaos 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I wont repeat just nod my head in agreement. 8) Gnangarra 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Contact me please

JeffStryker - I am giving up on Wikipedia as the abuse that occurs around here is not worth it. The remarks above bothered me as I came to be involved in a struggle with another user who kept reverting the Benjamin Cohen page away from a disambiguation page and always to one person, when I was trying to research the finance systems Brains Trust Benjamin Cohen one. The "harassment" referred to in the comment above actually was directed *towards* me by another user, and that same user is who tagged me as a single purpose account back at that time - all because I was new and had few edits. A third option and fourth opinion at the time saw things my way but reading the comments made above about me people would think I was the harrassing party. Speaking of which - that tagging as single purpose account seems to happen a lot to anyone that might have few contributions and limited topic interests on Wikipedia. Seemd to me they ought to try and encourage more contributions from such infrequent users, not aggressively tag them and scare them away. But what do I know? Anyway, I have now graduated with Honours, and am just about to start work in the US at a new job, and so have no interest in wasting any more of my time engaging in debate with often ignorant editors. (I don't know if you saw, but some of the people commenting above 'took issue' with a recent typo that appeared in the International Herald Tribune as a means to poke fun at the article I had posted in the recent Out Now AfD debate you also took part in. How sad.) If you can even be bothered to carry through with your previous comments to try and rewrite the article to be more encyclopedic, I have some more things I found after the AfD in my files and would like to make them available for you if you want to read them. Please don't contact me via Wikipedia but rather do this: email me using my flickr account name (- as per the IHT article I uploaded) (at) yahoo dot com, and I will tell you where they are (I will upload them). If I don't hear from you, or you decide not to bother, I will not be surprised - I cannot bother myself seeing the level at which some other editors I found here at Wikipedia seem to operate. Sadly a wasted resource. For the record, I completely agree with your observation that having many or most of the editors be part of the one Wikipedia social group and even the closing editor also being from the same region, seems quite concerning in an AfD debate, I am not sure if it is against any policies here and just cannot be bothered to even find out, but I certainly think it risks a perception of "comparing notes" between them. I looked just a little and they seem to have a recurring history of almost always sticking up for the others' position in various fora here. Sometimes pretty aggressively. You may not have noticed but the nominator for AfD of the Out Now article has admitted on Wikipedia to being "raised LDS" which I took to mean Mormon - and I wonder if you have ever seen or read any of *their* views on homosexuality? Curiouser and curiouser. Enough! Anyway, all the best to you. Email me if you want to see those additional articles... JudyRobinson 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, maybe I can help. My name is Charles Peyton and Jeff Stryker, the other jeff stryker may have been born with the name but legally I have owned every right to it since then, I have it as a state and federal registered trademark, I have used it as a dba since 1986 and legally I am entitled to use it. Believe it or not I know a man (a dear friend) who lives in San Francisco and his birth name is Ronald McDonold. I fully encourage my dear wikipedia to use my name in the way it was meant to use. The other Jeff Stryker has seemed to use it only to capitalize off my fame and thus make himself famous in his own little way. I like the way I earned it. I love this Encyclopedia and I encourage all other to enjoy it to. Otherwise, please, pay attention to my friend Ronald McDonald who has also made hamburgers (but only for his friends). The birth name Jeff Stryker had the name his whole lifetime and did not seem to d much with it where as in the time I had it, I made history. Thank you again for considering me. Jeff Stryker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff!

Doh, ignore me, I'm too tired and I completely read the wrong thing. Hee hee Sorry! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Omg, I was honestly completely shocked when I read that they were sending the saber up, I read it a few days ago, and couldn't believe it was true, lol. Pretty wild. I remember seeing the movie from the front row, on opening night (because those were the only seats left in the theatre) and my neck was killing me after 2+ hours, lol. (sadly it kinda made me dislike the movie because now I associate Star Wars with major pain lol) I did re-add the Chewie thing, as it is completely relevant, and interesting, and I fixed the refs. (I spelled Saber wrong ) Thanks again, and I'm really sorry! (P.S. it rocks that you know how to properly format citations, lol) ^Ariel♥Gold 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rufus Wainwright invitation

This brand new project is looking for members to help improve articles related to Wainwright. Feel free to join! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)