User talk:Jabailey1
Help me!
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I apologize if this is a duplicate. I tried asking this question once before but looking for more information I think I may have used the wrong tag and I;m not sure anyone will see the version.
I moved this page from my sandbox into the main space. I got a confirmation back that the page had been moved. However I am unable to find the artile when I search Wikipedia for it. I added it to the Bill Bradley (disambiguation) to see if that was part of the problem, but this doesn't help either.
When I checked my sandbox there was a red alert giving me several option. I chose to remove the tag user page from the space.
I still cannot find the article when I search for it. Am I missing a step here?
I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you very much.
Jabailey1 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved it back to ]
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I would like assistance to resolve an issue I have with the message above. It includes the phrase "since it appears you are related to this person and have a conflict of interest." As it happens, I am neither related to nor acquainted with Bill Bradley, the subject of this article. I am frankly astonished the Mkdw came to this conclusion and believe that whatever vague impression he/she formed is an inadequate ground for rejection of the article. It cannot, I think, have been the result of any serious review of the article since it is neutral in tone, verifiable, and contains no original research. I have searched Wikipedia for a mechanism to appeal this decision and have only come up with the arbitration process which seems extreme at this stage. Also as you will note, there is no other substantive reason for the rejection other than the vague statement that "you have tried to move it to number of places inside the Wikipedia "project" namespace which is not meant for articles." I think a review of the history will reveal that this is simply not the case. Even if it were indeed the case, it seems to me that any mistake in moving the article does not constitute grounds for rejecting the article itself. Nor does it imply any unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's guidelines for creating articles.
To be blunt, I am astonished at just how arbitrary this action and would like to request some guidance as to how to proceed from this point.
Jabailey1 (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes people misjudge someone to have a COI. I've certainly done it myself. I don't know what made Mkdw think you were related to Mr. Bradley, but you could ask at User talk:Mkdw. It's not a decision anyone made that will be much likely to adversely affect you editing, though. If you'd been reported at some noticeboard for it, it's required that you be notified, and not even a bot has done so, so you're likely in the clear. It was just a warning anyone could have placed on your user talk page here, and it's not really some sort of official declaration. Mkdw warned you about it because, since he thought you had a COI, people with COIs are discouraged from directly editing the topics they have a COI with as they could be too promotional in their edits.
- As for rejection on the grounds of it being in the wrong namespace, you are correct that that shouldn't really factor in. The problem with articles outside of article space is if they STAY that way, and you've tried very hard to make sure they aren't staying in a namespace that is never okay with articles (that is, the Wikipedia one). You did move it twice to project namespace, and the appropriate location is mainspace, indicated by (Main) in the move dialog. You might try submitting your article through WP:Articles for creation, to place it under review by others (if it's not ready for mainspace, they'll point out errors for you to fix) and perhaps get the help of someone more experienced in the move to mainspace. - Purplewowies (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]
- (happy to take your wordon whether you're related to the subject or not.
- As far as the article goes, I don't see any glaring issue with it; it is, I'm afraid, rather non-neutral, but not to an extent that couldn't be fixed through regular editing. The sourcing isn't perfect (you've got at least a couple of sources in there that wouldn't meet the guidelines for reliability), but again, that's fixable - there's enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article, and that's what counts. I would encourage you to move it to mainspace (note: not project space, prefixed with "Wikipedia" on the Move screen, but to mainspace, prefixed with "(Article)" on the Move screen. Don't worry, lots of people make that mistake the first time) so that other editors can work on it as well. Thanks for improving Wikipedia, and I hope you'll continue editing here. Yunshui 雲水 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]
Okay let's take a step back here because the "situation" has been largely misinterpreted. @
Welcome to Wikipedia
Hallo there Jabailey1 (talk),
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry to see that you are looking for help: please consider reading "
Ways to improve Diana Alouise
Hi, I'm Fluffernutter. Jabailey1, thanks for creating Diana Alouise!
I've just tagged the page, using our
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on
removed birth date of Jim McCormick
In an edit from 3 July 2013 you removed the 15 April 1956 birth date from the Jim McCormick (author) article, and marked the edit as m with no further comment. That's not a great use of the "minor edit" flag. The date doesn't seem to have a solid source. Is that perhaps why you made this silent deletion? It appears you did a lot of work on the article originally. I also thank you for those efforts. — MaxEnt 17:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I put it back in, flagged as citation-needed. Please feel entirely free to remove it again, supplying your justification in the edit comment. — MaxEnt 17:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jabailey1. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jabailey1. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Dean Hohl for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dean Hohl 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/Dean Hohl 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 notice from the top of the article. Edwardx (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Diana Alouise for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diana Alouise 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/Diana Alouise 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ron Taylor (author)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.to help you create articles.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
A tag has been placed on
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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jabailey1/new article name here
A tag has been placed on
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
]