User talk:I JethroBT/Archive 9

hello sir jethro. seeing as ive been able to see a part of your lifes activities I hope you don't mind me sharing a bit of mine with you. im 50 ,live in northern alberta Canada,an avid science seeker from a young age . my grade three teacher instill me with some very intriguing devices ,only one,a simple way to make browns gas, have I seen to date. the ancient knowledge quite possably stumbled apon by gentlemen like mr tesla and ed may very well be hiden in a Bosnian pyramid waiting to be rediscovered. coral castle in florida where ed cut and levitated huge coral blocks ,used this technology, and the simplest bare bones of this device still exists there to day, . my small group ,are all ready generating hundreds apon hundred of volts ,and with the device having a larger capacitance into the millions. from there understanding the devices for cutting the stone, like whats left from the past, to levitating them into place, are all ready a reality . you can also make a self levitating device for space exploration, or simply lifting materials to outer orbit. but really no need as materials are made from the gasses and all the elements can be created threw the device explained under the heading/plasma interaction with hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon to create the fundamental elements. I understand the difficulties Wikipedia must have to keep everything together,lol and greatly appreciate the opportunity to share and express my views and findings.im sure in the end we are all searching for the same truths and all hope for the same outcome, a peacefull planet. to be honest , ive only had this computer for a year and am still trying to figure it out. lol, an update to /electron spin reversal in a d.c. circuit terminating into ie. space. had the circuit run for 20 days after initiation and a 10 day half life before stopping. mr. Tesla drove around in a car with an antenna as part of his circuit terminating into space. I use ie. as an example as there are more than one way to terminate the circuit. most people that I interact with understand the implication of these ancient devices. some are happy witheach level of technology, they have achieved , from levitation to transmutation to production of materials,,there still exists more and probably always will. please note that the page under absorption by carbon was kept short and simple. carbon simply absorbs electro magnetic energy , it is why there is a loss of voltage at the brush, and why it absorbs radio frequency when it is interacted with a secondary plasma field created and using the expanded energy from the initial plasma field. words terms and phrases lol hope to talk again ron Ronald sykes (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ronald, thanks for sharing. I'd encourage you to detail your interests on your userpage so that editors know what your interests are more readily. Also, reading over the above, I am a little concerned something you said above:

I understand the difficulties Wikipedia must have to keep everything together,lol and greatly appreciate the opportunity to share and express my views and findings.

I think it's great that you take the time to do research like this in your spare time, but Wikipedia is not really intended to be a medium for publishing your

Teahouse as a resource too-- questions on pretty much any aspect of using Wikipedia are always welcome. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

05:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

its simply me not being able to interact properly with Wikipedia due to my lack of knowledge of the computer. it was given to me last Christmas by a friend ,otherwise I still probably would never have started learning how to use it.Ronald sykes (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Phil-- I actually have this tool already, though I'll readily admit I do not use it everytime I am able to. I'll check out that category, though, when I have some downtime. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you know what? I have already sent you the exact same message on 3 December 2011. I saw your name on the NPP log and thought that you might appreciate some assistance. Little did I know I was the person who sent you this message two years ago. Oh well, it's good to hear that you've got the script installed :) Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought you should be aware of this. Cheers, Stalwart111 07:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I JethroBT. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for uploading File:Haniwa with Drums.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not wanting to dredge up the whole thing again, and agreeing that we can disagree, I want to ask you why the obvious self-promotion of this guy and his use of Wikipedia for that purpose seemed to have so little traction for you (see

I'd like to make an observation without wanting to seem like an attack on you, so not being able to find the words, let me just be direct... You said some things about PR that were showed little practical knowledge and seemed to be naive about how marketing professionals operate nowadays. You doubted somewhat incredulously that mainstream magazines could be used as PR vehicles. The reality is that they can be. I work with some corporate marketing guys and know first hand how they operate and the level of deception involved nowadays. One particular acquaintance of mine (not exactly a friend) quit because he couldn't stomach the deception anymore... and it was his job specifically to place product/services into news stories of mainstream magazines and newspapers. Seriously, that was his job. Guys like him would say that a lapses in journalism ethics wasn't their problem, it was the journalists' problem. In some instances the marketers write the "news" story copy for the journalists to use simply use, as is, *unattributed*... and they give themselves high fives whenever they pull it off. This happens very easily as one might imagine in small, local newspapers and in industry newsletters/journals. But big guys like WSJ, Forbes, etc are constantly targeted. And it works (!!!) there too not because of lack of editorial control but because of different needs of the mega-media organizations, namely, they have a ravenous need for web content. WSJ and Forbes, for example have extensive blogs, so one strategy for the marketers is to target the journalist blog to pick up your item, then wait and push it to the news editors, being able to point out it was already part of WSJ or Forbes etc website content. The editors know this is poor journalism (a necessary evil, lazy, bad, unethical... the rationalizations vary) but they have a content beast to feed so they do it. You're not going to find this taught in business schools but that's common practice. So it's wrong to think something is notable just because it appears in a newpaper / magazine.... mostly it is, but a minority of things are exploitations of the system.

This is the way the neuroleadership guy did it. Several of his initial targets were news organization blogs, then other news organizations would cite each other. What I was trying to do when showing how many articles there were in the academic literature and then tracing it back to the neuroleadership guy's website... that wasn't "original research" as you characterized it, rather it was objectively showing how he got his marketing stuff into the secondary sources of seeming repute... the ones that you were doggedly focused on. He got is company and services recognized, but he did not create a new field. BTW, looking at your photo, I've got about about 20 years more on you with a lot of experience in a variety of fields. Also, I see that you do really good work. So please take my "experienced" advice to be less black & white about things like the notability issue and others... more nuance will benefit Wikipedia as well as yourself. The reason I'm following up is not because I lack better things to do but precisely because you obviously do good work and are dedicated... and I'd like to influence that dedication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapabc (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that expressing what you want to tell me is not really that easy to do without coming off badly. I appreciate the compliments on my work. That said, I think the comments on your perception of my age and of our age difference were unnecessary. You've already given me plenty of good reasons to listen to you. You don't need to act like the wise, older fish to get my attention.

Anyway, sure, I don't claim to know much about the underhanded methods of PR. My impression is that it is an ugly and cutthroat business. "Know thy enemy" seems like a good maxim to follow here and it's one I'll readily admit not doing in regards to the PR field. My main question is, how are you certain that is what has happened here? You seem absolutely confident based on what I see as incomplete information. Your account of how PR can work sounds plausible enough, but all I really have to go on is this blog entry and your word. Based on that, I can't wholesale buy into your argument about Neuroleadership's coverage being the result of a PR campaign to create the illusion of actual coverage. My objections extend from there being quite a big leap between these premises:

• Neuroleadership is junk science,
• There's not much academic literature on it,
• The originator is a PR guy,
• The PR industry can exploit the news industry,
• Journalists can be lazy and unethical sometimes,

and these conclusions:

• A targeted PR campaign was definitely launched for Neuroleadership,
• Newsblogs picked up the topic because of the PR campaign,
• News magazines picked up the topic because of the newsblogs and/or the PR Campaign,
• Books and newspaper articles included coverage on the topic because of the PR campaign too.

I think all your premises are spot on and I have zero disagreement about them. I also think their application to this case is spotty and I therefore do not think you have convincing evidence that the reason why Neuroleadership was covered in this manner was due to focused exploitation of the news industry via a PR campaign. How can we ever know that is actually happening based on this information? These conclusions rest on too many assumptions that lack concrete evidence (i.e. evidence of that a PR campaign actually happened, evidence that a major news outlet used a newsblog to cover the topic, evidence that the editors published info on the topic primarily because of copying from other news sources / industry demands / PR campaign / whatever, evidence that the PR campaign extended to an Australian newspaper and coverage in German news, etc.) If you can present additional evidence, I'm open to looking it over and reevaluating my opinion. Until then, I can't buy into this, and that's it. I can't take a more nuanced approach to evaluating articles based on evidence that doesn't strongly support its conclusions. You obviously see all this differently because of your experiences in the industry, and that's fine, but I don't share those with you and from where I sit, there are too many questions about these conclusions without real, concrete answers.

As for

WP:NOTPROMOTION, the fact that an article exists on this subject does not inherently make it promotional, nor do the motivations of its originator make the article promotional. What makes an article promotional is how the subject is presented. Presently, neuroleadership doesn't look promotional at all-- it looks like a crappy article (probably because no one wants to work on it.) Ultimately, it's seems wrong to delete something as promotional when it is not presented as such. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

[1] What does this mean? Your closure doesn't make any sense. As I said in the discussion "You can't word things in a way that make it sound like he might be racist, trying to lead people to that assumption, since that violates BLP." Someone calls the police to report crimes in the area, and by chance these people just happen to be of a different race. Why would you mention that if it has no possible relevance at all? He had black friends, he mentored black youths, his black neighbor spoke well of him. This violates BLP to try to give undue weight to ridiculously bias media sources. There is no possible way to word it without it making him sound racists. Dream Focus 21:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously some people did not agree with you-- that adding that information does not actually imply anything in particular (although it may to you). I stand by my close, and I gave you your options in it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When you crossed out the old reviewer, I think you must have done something wrong, because it's messing up Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama. Could you fix this, please? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry. Didn't expect that at all. I've updated the GA and removed the strike from the nominations page. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 13:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I have been replying to your suggestions at the article's talk page. Take a look and keep me updated--

Sriram Vikram (talk

) 20:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the review? Are you still doing it? --

Sriram Vikram (talk

) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I work, am married, and am busy with other matters outside of Wikipedia. Please be patient and give me at least a week to finish the review. (BTW, some editors wait months before a GA review happens.) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect that. But I got to make myself available for the review process. That's why asked. --

Sriram Vikram (talk

) 15:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll give you plenty of time to make the needed changes. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. When you need me back for the review, just leave a message in my talk page. --

Sriram Vikram (talk

) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god! You are really a tough task master! Poor me!! :) --

Sriram ^{speak up}

19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The peer-review process can indeed, be pretty tough. Your writing is good, but everyone's writing can usually use some fine-tuning, even native speakers. Peer-review is worthwhile, trust me. You should see the GA reviewer I had for my first (and only) GA. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English. That's why I'm finding it difficult to accept some suggestions. Most of these terminologies appear in most leading English newspapers in India. The so-called 'Indian English'. --

Sriram ^{speak up}

20:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. I did some looking around, but I didn't have any luck. I put a Table of Contents on the talk page, but it can only provide sections for the GA and the discussion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The TOC was what I asked for. Thanks for adding it.

Sriram ^{speak up}

18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did not want to keep mentioning your name everytime to grab your attention. So posted on your talk page. --

Sriram ^{speak up}

02:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The talk page template says "This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed." Can you fix it? And the category at the bottom too? --

Sriram ^{speak up}

15:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but there's nothing keeping you from doing it yourself. This kind of removal is not really controversial, so it's OK even if you're the article creator. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh really! I thought the templates in the talk page should be edited by uninvolved editors. Does that mean that, if I create a new article, I can review the article myself and create it's talkpage? --

Sriram ^{speak up}

16:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are different perspectives on this matter, so I can't speak for everyone.

the Teahouse. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for that. I owe you. --

Sriram ^{speak up}

04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

--LovesFilmandTV (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the

too soon in her career to have an article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

19:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I Jeth, sorry for pocking my nose, but I was wandering around and don't know how I hit on your userpage, and I read again and I saw this My name is Jethro. It was a nickname given to me by some friends of mine who liked. -- I am racking my brains, is Jethro your name or your nickname? Sorry, you don't have to answer this... I am being too curious.