User talk:Jaybregman

WP:NPA[edit]

This is unacceptable! Please stop or admins will be notified. Nashville Monkey 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ama case[edit]

Hello, i will be your advocate. To help you better i need a little more info.

What was the reason for the Speedy Delete and who was the admin?

if you can deal with the reasons for deletion, or dealt with them. then you can file a Wikipedia:Deletion Review.

Hi, nice to meet you and thanks for your help and for getting back to me so quickly.steel359 was the admin, the reason given was G11 "blatant advertising". There seems to be the need to refine the guidelines for this criteria. I had edited an article on ECourier for a few months. I recently checked and found, to my chagrin, that the article was deleted. It took a long time for me to figure out why--it had been summarily deleted by Steel359 for G11. I was upset because of how much time I had invested in the article, and that he did not even leave a message on my talk page to indicate that the article was marked for speedy deletion. I left a message on his talk page stating that I disagreed with his deletion, and asked for an apology. I perhaps used too strong terms and in retrospect this was a mistake--however my feelings on the philosophical issues here still stand. In any case, I filed a deletion review which can be found here [[1]]. As you can see, the response of user:steel359 indicated three reasons for the deletion. I responded to each of these points in turn, but before my response to be considered he stated "I am not going to entertain this any further". I do not believe that this was an appropriate response--and it is rather ironic that he would refuse to engage discussion on the issue when the core of the topic under discussion is the judgement and conduct of those with the power to delete information without oversight. As I responded with citations from highly reputable sources, one admin indicated (rightly) it would be possible for the article to be reposted and survive deletion. I therefore re-posted the article including 8 citations (covering every assertion which could reasonably be disputed) from such sources as The Economist, The Times, Release 1.0, the Financial Times, and academic papers. I also took great care to remove any terms which could be considered to be non-neutral or otherwise biased. This article is available in the history of the page. I then asked anyone who still believed the content to qualify as "Blatant Advertising" to respond with specific reference to the *content* of the article. So far, no one has, although one person deleted the article (I do not believe this was proper--what benefit was gained other than making it more difficult for those in discussion to access the content?). I have since asked it to be restored by an admin but have received no response. I do not believe any reasonable person can state with a straight face that the updated article does not meet the quality standards for a Wikipedia article; however, I am more than willing to listen to reasons why people think so, and if the article should be modfied as a result all the better. At least the information is there to be debated!

What worries me about this situation, as you will see from the discussion, is first that admins are taking the fact that a person with a declared conflict of interest edited an article to prove conclusively and *by that very fact alone* that the article can be considered "blatant advertising" and deleted without any oversight. To prove a given body of text is not just advertising but "blatant" advertising, one must by the very definition of the word "blatant" be able to justify that stance with reference to the text itself. Again, although one or two admins have had no trouble labelling it "advertising" (forgetting the blatant) they seem to have more difficultly stating what (in what should be a trivial exercise for articles which are in fact in this category) particulars of the text support the conclusion that the article is "blatant advertising".

Second, the criteria for "blatant advertising" are not fleshed out (the standards as to what qualifies as advertising are vague and in tension with the warning in the second sentence) and are being interpreted too loosely by those who have commented, which, given the standards which seem to have been applied in this case, would forbid any article about any company which mentioned its products or services. In other words, simply because I edited an article about a company I am affiliated with, this means it is advertising. This is clearly absurd, and the COI guidelines which have been raised explicitly address this when they state "WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to". I agree in a perfect world it would be better if neutral parties wrote all articles, but we should not forbid interested parties (who declare their interest) from doing so when the content of their edits is objective and survives any scrutiny attempting to prove otherwise.

I am worried that this issue may not get fair representation in the present debate--and that my reasonable request for those that endorse deletion to give examples from the article (particularly in its updated form) will not be heeded. I am asking for your guidance as to how to handle this situation, and that you help by restoring the article during the debate.Jaybregman 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the attack, going to WP:AN personal attack noticeboard should result in a sysop taking care of the attacker. G e o. 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, thanks, I will do this.Jaybregman 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, filing a deletion review should allow you to have your complaints heard. Geo. 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about this--we can wait and see how it pans out, but take a read to see what I mean [2] particularly troublesome no one has indicated any problems with the text of the article.
  - I was pretty disapponinted that the admin who closed the DRV ignored the revised text of the article--do I have any recourse?

Do you own E-Courier? Geo. 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's just say I'm involved. Why do you ask?Jaybregman 07:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vanity guidelines restrict users from writing about companies they own. This may be the reason for the opposition. You may be able to get around this, by writing it in Userspace and then having someone else create the article. Geo. 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide a link to these guidelines? PS I know you are correct and I am just now trying to get the page unprotected so others have the ability to write an article.Jaybregman 10:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is the biggest one. G e o. 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

message[edit]

Do you still require an Advocate? G e o. 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it's resolved. Thank you very much for your help.Jaybregman 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]