Jimbojonessmith

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeffrey P. Kahn

Hello Jimbojonessmith,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jeffrey P. Kahn for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't copy that page from another source, so I have republished it. If you still think it is copied, please link to the source you think it is copied from, so I can compare. I wrote it myself, using the pages of other academics as a model. Jimbojonessmith (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It is here, licensed under © 2024 Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, which is a copyright infringement. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeffrey P. Kahn

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 Jeffrey P. Kahn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://bioethics.jhu.edu/people/profile/jeffrey-kahn/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. JBW (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbojonessmith. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. JBW (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeffrey P. Kahn (February 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jeffrey P. Kahn and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbojonessmith! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Jeffrey P. Kahn

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 Draft:Jeffrey P. Kahn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://bioethics.jhu.edu/education-training/stavros-niarchos-bioethics-academy/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently editing contrary to Wikipedia's copyright policy, the policy on promotional editing, and the guideline on conflict of interest.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jimbojonessmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Jimbojonessmith (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

In view of the discussion below, I am happy to unblock you to give you another chance. JBW (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have disclosed my employment with Johns Hopkins University on my User Page, so don't understand why there is a conflict of interest violation. And my posting about Professor Kahn was in no way promotional, it was a factual account of his career. The only area where I see a potential issue is the copyright one, though I did materially rewrite the bio - however there are only so many ways to include a listing of a person's affiliations and publications. I bulleted them in an effort to not duplicate Prof. Kahn's original page - whose bio I am trying to create at his request. Jimbojonessmith (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are several things I could say to this, but I will restrict myself to the following.

1. Disclosing your connection to the subject you are writing about does not exonerate you from following the conflict of interest guideline: it is additional to the other requirements of that guideline, not an alternative to them.
2. Have you actually read the conflict of interest guideline? If you have, you seem to have failed to understand it, because you have said "whose bio I am trying to create at his request" in the same message in which you denied that you are editing contrary to that guideline, but that is precisely the kind of editing which the guideline is intended to prevent. JBW (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

   I guess I did misunderstand it. If you would unblock me, I will revise the article again and submit through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. I would submit that the content of the article is very neutral and informational, and is in no way promotional, but that would be for AfC editors to decide. This is my first article and while I have erred in that effort, I haven't approached this in an effort to deceive or disrupt and a Block feels unwarranted to me. But that's not up for me to decide.

   Best wishes Jimbojonessmith (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

   Even if you're unblocked and allowed to recreate this page, keep in mind that you cannot simply recreate it with the Hopkins website as a source. You need to find secondary sources about Professor Kahn, not things written by himself or his employer or his co-workers about him. WP:GNG and WP:PROF are what you're looking for here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

   I appreciate this insight. In fact, the page had links to such externals sources as the National Academy of Medicine and the Association of Bioethics Program Directors, which is part of the reason I'm surprised to have been blocked. Jimbojonessmith (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• I am willing to consider removing the block once a few points have been clarified, but for reasons I have explained elsewhere I am not ready to do so yet. I apologise for keeping you waiting, but I hope it won't be for too long. JBW (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblock offer

I am willing to remove the block and allow you to return to editing provided that you undertake to comply with the conflict of interest guideline and the requirements relating to paid editing. (To avoid any risk of an astonishingly common misunderstanding, if you edit as part of a job for which you are paid then you are a paid editor, whether or not you are paid a specific sum for editing Wikipedia.) However, to minimise the risk of further problems, I also offer you the following information and advice.

• I have no doubt whatever that you have been acting in good faith, and been caught out by policies and other requirements which you had no reason to be aware of. The following comments are offered in the hope that they may help to avoid similar problems in future.
• Your editing of the article Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics added unambiguously promotional material. If you honestly cannot see that, then it is questionable whether you will be able to edit in the neutral way required. Unfortunately, before you arrived, that article was already saturated with promotional material, which no doubt encouraged you to think that more of the same would be acceptable. I don't blame you for that at all; it is natural for new editors to assume that what they see here is an indication of what is acceptable, but unfortunately that is not always so.
• I could go into the issues relating to copyright at great length, but here are some essential points. You may well have the authority to post material from your institution's web site to Wikipedia, but we don't assume so, for several reasons, including the following. When you post anything to Wikipedia, you give permission for anyone in the world to reuse it, either as it is or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose whatever, subject only to attribution. Are you 100% sure that your employers would be willing to see their text published somewhere, modified to portray its subject in a very negative light? Perhaps they would, but rather than just assuming that they would purely on the the word of someone who has come along and created a Wikipedia account, we require proof that they are willing to license their text so freely. There are several ways of providing such proof, but perhaps the simplest is to include a statement on their web site that its content is licensed for such broad free reuse; after all, if they really do wish to allow such free reuse, then they should be happy to say so.
• A very large proportion of new editors who start out by creating new articles have a very frustrating and unproductive time here, because they encounter various problems, some of which you have already seen. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Obviously that advice is unlikely to appeal to you if you are here with no intention of doing anything other than creating a particular article which you have been asked to create, but I offer it to you anyway.
• I have not searched for information about the person you have written about to determine whether he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but uou would be well advised to study the relevant parts of them before continuing to write about him. If he doesn't, then no article about him, no matter how well written, is likely to survive long.
• Obviously, Wikipedia editors are individuals, and there is an ernormous range of opinions concerning how far it is acceptable for someone to create an article to publicise themself or one of their colleagues. There's a minority of editors who think it is perfectly alright, with no problems at all, and another minority at the other end of the spectrum who think that it is totally unacceptable and should never be allowed. The median view is, it seems to me, closer to "we tolerate it provided it doesn't violate other policies" than to "we welcome it". That is reflected in the wording of the conflict of interest guideline, which both discourages one from editing on subjects closely related to oneself and lays down guidelines on how to do so if one does decide to do so. Many people read it and somehow see only the second of those two parts. Many administrators will never unblock an editor in your situation unless they undertake not to write about any subject for which the conflict of interest guideline applies to them; I am willing to unblock on the basis of the much more moderate undertaking that if you do write on such a subject then you make sure that you follow that guideline. If you are willing to make that undertaking, then please let me know. JBW (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate this thorough and insightful explanation. Moving forward, if I am unblocked, I will adhere strictly to the policies regarding copyright and conflict of interest. I appreciate Wikipedia as a resource as it exists and certainly didn't intend to run afoul of its policies. Thanks for taking the time to share these insights and for considering a removal of my block. Jimbojonessmith (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)