User talk:Jbghewer

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I want to proceed properly on this matter as I have been through some COI issues in the not too distant past. I have been following the COI discussion and have studied the various methods I could use to ensure that the articles I am interested in are accurate and comply with Wiki standards. I have received kind help from Maclean25 in getting a book article I edited improved and upgraded. The article I am concerned with now is the one on Thomas Homer-Dixon. You can see from the history that it was fairly decimated by a couple of avid editors, and is now just bare-bones. This is something I would like to rectify once I am confident of the correct procedures. I would like to see it contain more useful information for anyone searching info on this person. HERE IS THE CURRENT CONCERN: Just recently, and interestingly right after the appearance of THD's latest article, some editing was done on the Thomas Homer-Dixon Wiki article. In my view, and that of THD himself, the new content seems to violate a few Wiki basic policies. Yes, the info is factual and properly documented, but it is very one-sided...not NPOV. The April 2013 article mentioned in the edits received much media attention and spawned numerous interviews, yet this editor chose just one reaction, a very negative one. First of all, this is just the latest in regular and numerous articles by THD in international newspapers and journals over the last 2 decades. Why should this one be the only one mentioned in his Wiki biography? Secondly, the tone and language of the added material are not very encyclopedic, and the editor's clearly negative opinion is poorly veiled by the use of numerous direct quotes.

As a fairly new user with declared COI, I do not feel I should be the one to revert or flag these edits for any Wiki violations. I am following some of the advice on the BLP noticeboard pages on this issue and hope that I can get some help and advice here. Thank you for either assisting me or steering me in the right direction.Jbghewer (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the article, and I can't see anything particularly amiss. The section which describes criticism of the April 2013 article is fine. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of WP:NPOV. It doesn't mean that an article has to portray its subject in a completely neutral light, or that it has to document equal amounts of praise and criticism of the subject. It simply means that the language in which the article is written must be neutral. For example, it would be wrong to jump in and say "In April 2013 Homer-Dixon wrote a terrible article for the New York Times", but that's not what the article says - it merely states that there has been criticism of the article (which there has) by reliable sources (which are referenced) and then describes that criticism. You're right in saying that sources shouldn't be cherry-picked to make one side of the argument appear more prominent than it actually is, but that is not grounds for removing criticism. Given your declared COI I think it's best if you back away from this article. There are plenty of other editors to maintain it. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, considerations and response. Yes, I would love another editor to help with this. I have been studying the BLP policy and feel that there is an issue with this added material under the WP:BALANCE, as there are numerous other articles by this person that could be discussed and certainly some positive feedback on them. I have also begun a discussion on the BLP noticeboard and the one response so far is thus:

looking at the entry I don't think placing the exchange itself in the career section violates WP:BLP, although it definitely violates WP:WEIGHT in two ways. First I am wondering if an exchange that started four days ago is appropriate for entry. Second the exchange itself is taking up over a third of the "career" section. I would personally cut it down to two or three sentences, or delete it altogether, but that is up to the community on that page as to what is appropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion would be the preferred path on the WP:WEIGHT issue at the very least. I don't want to be the one to revert on these grounds to prevent another COI uproar, but would hope that another user would be so kind. I know that COI policy is under intense discussion at the moment with no clear decision on connected editing. Personally, I feel that the interests of Wiki are not being served when a very small picture of a person is presented in a biographical piece. Either the whole picture or none at all would be the right course for an encyclopedia. Any suggestions on a good BLP mentor I could approach for help?Jbghewer (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Thomas Homer-Dixon speaking at BCNDP.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Thomas Homer-Dixon speaking at BCNDP.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Thomas Homer-Dixon speaking at BCNDP.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Thomas Homer-Dixon speaking at BCNDP.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Carbon shift (book), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

VIVEK RAI : Friend? 07:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:'Carbon Shift' book cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:'Carbon Shift' book cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Hello, Jbghewer. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the articles Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift (book) and The Upside of Down, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:'The Upside of Down' book cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:'The Upside of Down' book cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jbghewer. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 00:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- Rrburke (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carbon Shift (book) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carbon Shift (book) 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/Carbon Shift (book) 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 template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jbghewer. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- Rrburke (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited The Upside of Down, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Exchange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Homer-Dixon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Jbghewer. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Thomas Homer-Dixon, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

To be clear, you are a single-purpose account and have an obvious and massive conflict of interest essentially promoting Thomas Homer-Dixon. You should not even be editing the article at all. You've acknowledged your COI and persist in editing. Given the subject matter, I'm not convinced it has anything to do with your being new; see WP:IDHT. Primary cites can't establish a reason for including the content in question, and this is not a WP:RESUME. Further, nobody bases what's acceptable on observations of other articles; there is no such estoppel on Wikipedia because the rules apply equally. See WP:OTHERCRAP. Staying away from the article is probably your best bet on 1) avoiding being a disruptive editor, 2) avoiding your own personal angst over content, and 3) having the article actually meet required standards. Best of luck. JFHJr (㊟) 20:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jbghewer. You have new messages at Drm310's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]