User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Draft:Brian Solis

Hi JBW, thanks for your review of my draft Brian Solis. Unfortunately there's no way for me to improve it if nobody is willing to help and explain what makes it an advertisement or provide any examples from the draft. I spent hours on this and I don't know what to change exactly. Most of my sources are from academic journals, authoritative writers (Chris Brogan / Andrew Keen / Keith A. Quesenberry) or known newspapers and sites (Los Angeles Times / Financial Times / El Comerico Peru / Atlanta) I'm simply saying what they are saying in different words. I'd be very thankful for some more detailed feedback and help. Thank you JJelax (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW, do you have any feedback ? JJelax (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW. I'm just pinging you in case you haven't noticed. Have a nice day! JJelax (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JJelax: Hello. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. A large part of the reason why I didn't is that I really don't know what I can say that is likely to help you, but I'll say a few things which I hope may clarify things for you.

Years ago in this situation I used to try to pick out one or two sentences to illustrate the promotional tone of the writing, thinking that would be enough for the writer to see the point, and then be able to recognise the same tone in the rest of the writing. Unfortunately, however, over time I discovered that doing that never worked. (Yes, I do mean "never", not "rarely ".) Very often the writer would remove the particular examples I mentioned, and sometimes one or two other very similar ones, but leave the rest just as promotional as ever. It seems that anyone who can look at a page of writing which to most people looks promotional, and can't see the promotional tone, does not become able to see it because a few examples are pointed out.

I have two questions which may be relevant. (They are not rhetorical questions, and please do answer them.) (1) Do you work in marketing/PR/advertising/any similar area? People who do often become so used to reading and writing promotional language for hours on end, day after day, that they become desensitised to it, and can't see it even when it's obvious to other people. (2) Are you personally connected to Brian Solis in some way, such as working for him or with him? If one is writing about a subject in which one has a personal involvement, it can be difficult to stand back from it and see how one's own writing may look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that one may write in what looks to others as a promotional way, even if one sincerely believes that one is writing objectively. If one or both of those applies to you, you may find it very difficult, or even impossible, to create an article in the way required for Wikipedia, no matter what advice or help you are given.

I suggest you re-read the "Career" section of the draft, and try to see anything which may make it look promotional to others. That may be in the tone and style of the writing, the selection of facts to present, or the manner in which they are presented. To me, the whole section has the feel of relentlessly trying to impress me with what an illustrious career Brian Solis has had. It is not a matter of particular details which can be excised or reworded: it's a question of the overall character of the whole text.

There is also the question of references that you cite. References are needed for two purposes: for verification of information in the article and for evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I checked a sample of the references. They generally did verify the statements to which you attached them, though the extent to which they indicated significance of those statements varied; for example, He has been described as "a prominent thought leader in new media": yes, he has, in one passing comment in a text which briefly mentions him in a couple of sentences. However, the only thing I saw that took even the first step towards indicating that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability was one book review, and even that one didn't go anywhere near far enough. There are currently 31 references in the article, and I did not check them all, so there may be one or more much better references there which I missed, but what I saw did not suggest that the notability guidelines are satisfied.

After writing all of the above, I decided to have a quick search for sources to cite, and my god, I can't tell you how much I regret not having done that first, because it would have saved me from wasting my time doing all the checking, writing, editing, etc that I have done. What I saw was briansolis.com, x.com, instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, etc etc; not one independent source in sight. Oh yes, and forbes.com, which is variable, with some reliable and some unreliable content, so I checked it. It was written by a "contributor", which in Forbes-speak means someone acting with little editorial oversight, and free to publish paid content. However, even if I hadn't know that, it would have been obvious what the nature of the text was: it was full from start to finish with gushing promotional hype, including using some of the same wording as on the other pages I saw. Particularly common in the pages that I found was "world-renowned". If he's so "world-renowned", then why didn't I find some of the coverage in worldwide reliable sources that any world-renowned person must have? Why have they all been pushed out of sight by all the self-promotional, self-published, sources that I found? Because there aren't any, of course. Everything that I saw, everything, is unambiguously part of a mass campaign to publicise and promote someone who is not "world-renowned", and who unambiguously does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, nor even nearly so. No article about a subject which does not satisfy those guidelines, however well written, can ever be suitable as a Wikipedia article. JBW (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Technical news

Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi JBW... looks like block evasion happening at Getronics. You blocked the account Getronics Communications and reverted their edits, but subsequently two IPs (81.39.111.30 and 83.165.23.114) added a bunch of promotional material back in (which I reverted). Looks like you noticed this too, and questioned them both; the .114 account confirmed that they work for the company. I asked them if they were the same person as the blocked account - no answer yet.

The article has a history of being edited by undisclosed paid editors. I've listed the obvious ones on the talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: Yes, I saw this several hours ago, but my time has been tied up in non-Wikipedia matters, do I haven't had time to deal with it. I hope to get onto it soon. JBW (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: FOGO Soluitions

JBW,

Can you please undelete my article? It was still and I had not submitted it for review yet. The article itself is not "unambigous advertising" as you claim. It is the history and facts about the company, FOGO Solutions. I previously disclosed before writing the draft that I was writing on behalf of my employer as required by Wikipedia. I also included citations for many secondary sources in the article. F writer935 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@F writer935: Are you seriously telling me that language such as "Managed IT services from FOGO Solutions provide comprehensive, proactive technology management that ensures your business's IT infrastructure operates smoothly and securely" is not unambiguously promotional? JBW (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you that it was still in the draftspace and not submitted for review therefore you had no right to delete it. I was still working on it. I can change the language to what you deem acceptable if you undelete it. F writer935 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@F writer935: I can understand your sense of frustration at seeing your work deleted. I shall say a few things which I hope may be helpful to you.

You may like to consider whether announcing to me what I don't have a "right" to do is the most diplomatic way of trying to persuade me to agree to your request.

Having been a Wikipedia administrator since 2010, I believe that I have a reasonably good idea of what the deletion policy is, and I don't think it says that pages packed full of marketing speak and glowing encomiums of their subjects are immune to deletion provided they are in draftspace. Nevertheless, I was intending to restore the draft to give you a chance to improve it, but I have now seen that other administrators have declined your requests to do so, and will not unilaterally go against consensus.

Yes, you did disclose your paid status as an editor; and I thank you for that. However, the requirement to do so is additional to all the other Wikipedia policies: it does not replace them, and promotional content is no more acceptable from an editor who has disclosed that they are editing as paid work than from one who hasn't.

If there's any other clarification or help you think I may be able to provide, please feel welcome to ask me. JBW (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of subpage

You recently deleted the subpage User:Mr. Cage NYC/Hobbies and Interests. At the beginning of this subpage I gave an explanation and wrote: "List of Wikpedia articles. I plan and organize my reading time." Do you call something like that misuse? Mr. Cage NYC (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia is not a web host for pages for personal use, including for organising reading time about hobbies. JBW (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reading time, my friend. I wrote List of Wikipedia articles. Mr. Cage NYC (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Democracy (Greece)

Hi, JB. Somebody should protect New Democracy (Greece), it's been attracting sockpuppets once a month since December; I reported to RfPP but nothing happened. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Semi-protected for 3 months. I'm afraid I have no confidence that will work, because I think the troll is likely to game autoconfirmation, but it may help, and if it doesn't it may be worth considering EC protection. JBW (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring single-purpose IP at Vance Monument

JB, would you mind doing something something about this? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Discospinster beat you to it. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]