User talk:Jfpwebguy

Brian, I am assuming? Blogs are a very touchy area as a source on WP. From what I could tell by that blog, it wasn't an actual newspaper blog, ie: one owned and operated by a newspaper, but rather was a blog ABOUT newspapers and other media. If I'm wrong about that, please point it out via a link where I am missing the connection. I have no problem whatsoever working with you on bringing this article up to WP standards, none whatsoever. But it's either got to be with independent, 3rd party sources or remain without sources where needed with the citation needed tag in place until such 3rd party sources eventually happen over time.

Also, I'd suggest we communicated on the JFP article's talk page so that we can keep everything in one place. You can access that either by clicking the 'discussion' tab at the top of the Jackson Free Press article or simply click here. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (whose daddy was once editor of the Daily Corinthian)[reply]

Our policy is against "Promotional usernames: usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it". Especially since you do edit JFP-related articles, this is a violation. Your best bet is to pick another username that doesn't attach to the JFP. (And watch out for conflict of interest, as always.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I would have thought erring on the side of transparency would be preferable than pretending not to be who I am. I've read (and seen) that some people try to hide their personal agendas behind formal language here, but I'd hope that would be policed to a minimum as well. OK, I'll change it to something more mysterious and provocative. And as you can see, my posts aren't about editorializing about the paper in any way, or even editing the opinionated/personal part about our user agreement, just giving the sources requested and correcting inaccuracies about the business. I've spent far too much time on that part anyway. But accuracy and fairness matter, I hope. User: jfpwebguy

Sourcing

Allstarecho, for the most part is correct. We try not to use blogs or other Wiki's (especially Wiki's that are run by the company in reference) as reliable sources. I am the one who added the tag to the top of the page. There are some sources that are from reliable, third party organizations / publications, and that is great. But there are other ones that are not, which needs to be worked on. Have no fear, there isn't going to be a mass deletion of context from the article, due to these minor sourcing problems. I know one of the problems is finding a source for the readership. Again, the Wiki (that is ran by the organization in question, JFP), isn't a reliable source, only because it is a Wiki. If you can find that number (about 60,000 I think it was) somewhere else, that would be great to source it. Even if you find it on the JFP's main website, that should be an acceptable source per WP:SELFPUB. Secondly, if the publication says it is named after a civil rights-era paper, I see no reason not to include that, per the same guideline. I hope this answers your questions. Just a reminder, if you make further modifications to the page, and they keep getting reverted, try not to start an edit war (I'm not accusing you, just reminding of policy), as I clearly see you are making a good-faith effort to improve the quality of the article. If somebody has a problem with some changes you are making, try discussing it on the talk page. If you have any more questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RJd0060. I'm new at this and certainly have no interest in an "edit war." That seemed to come from other places. I'm just trying to answer the questions raised and correct inserted inaccuracies by people obsessed with criticizing the JFP for personal reasons. Again, I get the point about the wiki policy—however, I think it's saying it's OK to use it for the point about the paper being named for the civil-rights paper because the paper IS the primary source. Would it make more sense to reference the paper's FAQ for that point, which is on the site and not a wiki?

As for circulation of newsweeklies, that can be a tough problem as I've stated. The bizarre part to me is that we're claiming a small print run-- one of the smallest in AAN--and it is being questioned, even though wikipedia pages of larger publications do not require the same level of reference scrutiny. It'd be understandable if the jfp was claiming 1.7 million circ or such! But I can see the game here and i'll play it as long as the rules are fair and consistent and no more inaccuracies are posted. I don't know if you know the media industry circus, but circulation figures and audits are big business and the companies purposely don't post numbers online so that publications have to pay for them. Again, we can fax any of the backup needed to prove our 17,000 copies or the readership and the only point of leading to the paper's wiki was to give a way for people to check the information if they give a damn.

But your go-ahead about the ciruclation number being on the JFP Web site should fix the problem, and that seems to answer the question about linking to the actual FAQ on the civil-rights paper issue. I will link the FAQ on the JFP site as the source for both those pieces of information.

I don't feel strongly about allstarecho deleting the Vermont newspaper blog that talked about the TDN thing, but I am curious if it is correct policy that Wikipedia cannot reference news posted on newspaper blogs. That seems odd in the 21st century, and I'd like to know for my own information, should I decide to start helping build out other sites.

Anyway I appreciate the respectful and prompt help. User:jfpwebguy

Sorry for all of the trouble that you are having. As I said before, I know that you are making a good effort to improve the article. As far as listing the JFP's website for references, it should be okay as long as it strictly meets WP:SELFPUB. It appears that some people already do not agree, as they've reverted you, but I reverted back. If it continues, refer the editor to a discussion on the talk page, and discuss it with them directly. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I appreciate the good-faith efforts to get it right, though. In the journo world we're used to being able to factcheck in various ways without URLs, so it's frustrating to watch so much effort over something so simple. The JFP started five years ago with a smaller print run (14K, I think) and has steadily grown as has the Web site, a can of worms I won't even open after all this disturbance in the force over us wanting the circulation figure just to be accurate. Smaller papers also get screwed because we can't afford all the audits the dailies can. But we're proud of our 17K. (smile) Jfpwebguy (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, my sympathies are with you guys. I've written for my AAN paper, I know what the chains think of as "journalism"; but for that very reason, I have to be firm about our standards of verifiability, in order to retain integrity. (You know, you can submit a corrected figure to the Ulrich's website.) (And you do need to do something about that username problem.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at Ulrich. Submitting a correct number to them seems no different then just posting here, but red tape is a fact of life. Haven't had a minute to look at username problem. Why don't you just tell me what it is/I should do and finish the beating the guy while he's down? So he can pick himself up of course. Jfpwebguy (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your observation/question above, I deleted the Vermont blog because blogs aren't reliable sources on Wikipedia. You say it's a newspaper. From what I could tell of it, it was a blog ABOUT news media (papers, TV, radio) in Vermont. I also told you if I missed something in my assessment of the blog, then please point it out. You've yet to do that but instead continue with vague statements of how bad I am and continue to bring up that I supposedly violated JFP's user agreement when posting on it's own forums. While you're learning about Wikipedia, please also read WP:ATTACK and tread lightly in that area. I told you I'd work with you, and anyone else for that matter, to bring the JFP article up to Wikipedia standards. Read WP:AGF as well. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further regarding the "Vermont blog", it's called 802 Online: A blog about vermont, its media and its internets. It's not a newspaper itself and the direct link used as a source is just blog writing. See it. -- ALLSTARecho 01:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your posts

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, sarge. Bear with me. Jfpwebguy (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Donna Ladd

Hi! Someone (not me!) has nominated Donna Ladd for deletion. As someone who has made contributions to it, you may wish to comment on this on the talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]