Talk:Edmund Janniger

Closing

Razr Nation's closure was absolutely in accordance with WP:NACD as he is an experienced editor. Only an administrator can reopened a deletion discussion. ("Non-administrators should, as a rule, only close discussions if they are fairly experienced editors, and have participated at previous deletion discussions...Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator.") I have reverted the misguided steps taken by Kashmiri, who is not an administrator. Thanks. Cachets687 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone demurs, there is an established forum for reviewing deletion discussions. As a rule, the close must be clearly errant for it to be easily overturned. In the case at hand, there was clearly not a consensus for deletion per se, so the close would be highly unlikely to be reversed. Collect (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Some people need to learn more on how Wikipedia works. Cheers. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I suggest renominating this in a month or so, half a year should be enough for people to think about it again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, yes also thought so, just want to be sure that sure the person no longer appears in the media. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 14:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All I see is an April 2016 article from a Polish tabloid Fakt ([1]) that summarizes his story with the tongue-in-cheek update about him "continuing high profile work by being a candidate for the student council position". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Piotrus Might be no longer doable :((( [2] — kashmiri ^TALK 13:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Newsmax article byline of Edmund Janniger per se. May 2016. I see no sign that he has mysteriously ceased to be notable between May 12 and June 1, 2016. Collect (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing for websites does not confer notability. Not in the slightest. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"No longer appears in the media" is directly contradicted by the cite, however. When one "appears in the media" within the past month, it is clear the person has not vanished utterly and completely. Collect (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Herein, by publishing this sentence, I am "appearing in the media". Lol! — kashmiri ^TALK 17:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not quite - if you wrote an article published by an independent media corporation and which could not be construed as "self-published" and such a source was widely-known, then you might be able to make that claim. It isn't. You aren't. You can't. Collect (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course my text has been published by an independent media organisation - I certainly hold no stake at Wikimedia Foundation. Following your logic, this has made me a notable person with an inalienable right to a Wikipedia article.

On a serious note, authoring a publication does make a person notable; but being a subject of a publication. I will end here because discussing this further is a total waste of time. Go and ask the folks at WP:RFC/A if you please, they will explain to you. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct - Woodward and Bernstein did nothing notable by having their work published by the Washington Post. By the way, your comments here do not even count as important as a SPS blog - Wikipedia is specifically and legally not the "publisher" of your work. Collect (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comparing the Newsmax crap to Watergate papers... ROTFL! Why not directly to Napoleon? — kashmiri ^TALK 10:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It is more than a few steps above comments on a Wikipedia talk page - is there any sound reason for your obsessive interest in this person? Collect (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is: surprisingly pushy promotion of E.J. and his family, also using single-purpose accounts. I have closed quite a large number of SPI's, some seemingly unrelated, and am rather sensitive to certain style of COI editing. Oh, and since we are talking about disclosures and COI, can you confirm that you do not know E.J. or the operator of Cachets687 account in person? Thanks. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Straight to the ridiculous accusation level!

I am not Polish. I now no one at all remotely mentioned in this article whatsoever. I know no one at Newsmax or any remotely related entities. I have no remotely conceivable conflict of interest on this whatsoever. I have been on-line since 1982, which makes me a tad old for such game-playing. I do not now who the hell "E.J." is, nor do I give a damn. I have no idea who "Cachets687" is, nor do I give a damn. I have never run a "sock" on Wikipedia" whatsoever, and you can look at my 44,000 edits if you wish to make a total of yourself. Is this all damn clear? Collect (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean you - you are clearly and undoubtedly not a SPA, besides your writing style and rich English differs greatly from than of Edmund Janniger's or Cachets687. But there are a few others. BTW, I also known none of the mentioned. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Pumping up

This bio now claims that the guy worked at the ministry for... 3 years and suggests that Macierewicz is still the Minister of Defence (in fact he resigned in Jan 2018). Wow! 21:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This one too, and his LinkedIn profile still has him as a ministry employee in 2020. All this smells fake from a mile. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Even more: the Institute of Global Affairs, the International Security Forum, and even the Friends of Poland are not actual organisations or businesses (least think-tanks!) but simply 3-4 page websites hosted on the social networking platform Nationbuilder.org. Anyone can create such a website and call themselves a "president". The pumped-up image of Janniger and these "think tanks", projected by some media quoted here, is very distant from the reality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)