User talk:Jeffreymarkrogers

You have been reported as deliberately vandalising Wikipedia pages.

Your account will be monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookshat (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffreymarkrogers, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jeffreymarkrogers! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jemma Green

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jemma Green requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Cookshat (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Green - work history

Hi,

I see that you removed content about her work history from this edit. Since this source of this info also gives her month and year of birth, how do you know that the work history is incorrect?

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The month and year of birth are already stated under the photograph. The work history is not early life so it does not belong in 'Early Life'. I have referred to work history references from Linkedin and do not locate that reference and dont believe it meets materiality threshold for Wikipedia.

Thanks!

Jeffreymarkrogers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same message posted on my talk page, copied over the signature here - which is made by typing 4 tildes ~~~~.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being early in her career doesn't make it inaccurate or immaterial. Is there a problem with her employment with this organization - or with the organization itself?

We don't cherry-pick information. The only reliable source that I could find for her month and year of birth was the source of this work history.

Linkedin is not a reliable source, for pretty much the same reason as those expressed in Talk:Jemma Green#Potential close connection or conflict of interest. Please see reliable, secondary, and WP:INDEPENDENT sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How do you know the source is correct? There are other job histories, which I can locate references for online that you have not included. If you dont include each and every job, you too have cherry picked information. I see no problem with the organisation but I cannot validate from the reference you provided that it was this person that worked there.

Is this reference adequate? http://www.wrec2017.com/invited-speakers.php;---Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkrogers (talk)

You may be find other job histories, but there aren't that many from independent sources. Essentially, speaker bios are written by the speaker or someone close to them, so they're not so independent. I've already just one to catch she was born in Perth (the only reliable source I could find). Go ahead, but please note two things: 1) they are abbreviated bios and 2) someone may come along and question the overuse of speaker bios.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments. You just need to add ~~~~ after you finish typing your message. Then, save. Otherwise, people have to come behind you and add your signature.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffreymarkrogers - Adding the term Public Servant is not "Vandalism." In the language of Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. You can avoid using the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns and the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks. Cookshat (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cookshat- Wikipedia contributors use the term "vandalism" to refer to changes which are intentionally unconstructive. Such changes may be removal of useful content, addition of nonsense, or deliberate introduction of factual errors. You have on numerous occasion changed this page to make derogatory, defamatory and unconstructive statements. For example, writing that she is a 'shameless self promoter and political hopeful'. There are dozens of other examples of this kind of vandalism on the page. Further, you have repeatedly removed references from the page, then later made statements that that material on the page is unreferenced. As stated above, vandalism is also characterised by removal of useful content. Finally and most crucially, you have also made statements on the page which are unreferenced and which would therefore indicate you know Jemma Green and are therefore 'Conflict of interest editing' Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.

comment added by Jeffreymarkrogers ([[User talk:Jeffreymarkrogers#top|talk]

Jeffreymarkrogers - Given you have only been using Wikipedia for 3 days I can understand your confusion and misunderstanding of the WP rules. Cookshat (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind if I add my two-cents. I don't think that anyone is trying to vandalize the page. I think that there are differences of opinion about the truth - and an intention by both of you to ensure that the truth is told.

Food for thought: Writing an encyclopedia article should be done from a neutral point of view. Someone once said that it should read as if someone from the BBC was reporting the story on the news. That would mean that it would be "fact checked" - in wikipedia world that means that it would have a reliable, independent, and secondary source - like a mainstream news source. It would also mean that the tone should be objective.

Opinions should be stated in the form of quotes, with attribution and a reliable source, and should be added only if it's notable and a meaningful addition to the article (versus to state one's own personal opinion). Statements about someone's intentions are not encyclopedic content.

If there is a conflict of interest, then changes to the article should be made through {{request edit}}s placed on the article talk page. I hope that this all makes sense.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Green - problem edits

Here is a list of problem edits made to the article:

replacing sourced content with unsourced content
introducing external links into the body of the article like her father John (deceased) was an Irish born thoroughbred horse breeder and trainer.
introducing content that is not verified by the external link - or previous citation - there is no mention that John is her father, that he his Irish, or that he is a horse breeder and trainer, or that he's dead. i.e., this source does nothing to prove the content in the phrase.
introducing an external link into the body of the article that doesn't refer to Jemma Green
removing the link to JP Morgan Chase, the new merged name
using Linkedin as a source - it's not a reliable, secondary source

Basically, except for a minor edit, the content should be returned to this version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit about the sentence about John.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CaroleHenson, this is helpful background. I concur on all except - For your information, J.P.Morgan is a separate company to J.P.Morgan Chase - see here.

Jeffreymarkrogers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am missing the point about JP Morgan Chase. The external link that you embedded in the article in these edits was https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Corporate-Responsibility/es-memberships.htm

J.P. Morgan is the article about the founder and J.P. Morgan & Co. was the former company name.

What do you think is the correct company name?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.P.Morgan Chase is the parent company and J.P. Morgan is a subsidary. Both still exist, neither is former.

User Cookshat continues to vandalise this page. Can you suggest something? The National Academy of Science in Australia is seeking to get more women social scientists on Wikipedia as they are under represented. They have organised a Wikibomb to create and maintain pages. I am unfamiliar with how the Wikipedia world works. Any guidance you can provide is appreciated.

Jeffreymarkrogers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs)

Yep, I don't know what that's about, I don't think it's an attempt to vandalise the page, but perhaps misguided language. Your comment in the edit summary was pretty clear. Rather that remove the content, I attempted to fix it. Let me know if you have a problem with my edits. That should take care of things - but I'll follow-up if needed.

Regarding attempts to add articles for under represented people, that sounds like a good effort. That will mean that others may come along and add to the article. I don't see her name on a worklist on Wikipedia right now, but that doesn't mean someone doesn't have it on an off-line list.

You may want to vote on the article for deletion discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On previous occasions Cookshat has tried to change the page to say Jemma Green is a 'shameless self promoter and political hopeful' as well as many other derogatory statements. This goes back to November 2016 til now. It appears this user is a niusance and is still trying to make edits to the page that are unwarranted. This latest one is obviously less defamatory, but this the overall picture is still problematic and taking up a lot of resources to fix on a daily basis.

How do I vote?

Jeffreymarkrogers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs) (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. The good news is that things are settling down, so it's kind of good to go with that.

You vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemma Green and I recommend looking at this info about how to vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the company name, I saw that J.P. Morgan & Co. is an active division / subsidiary and replaced it as the source of "JPMorgan" in the article, removing the parent company JPMorgan Chase.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson Cookshat has marked the page for speedy deletion. Do you believe this is justified? I also notice the discussion with you and Cookshat where Cookshat says 'there is no independence in a faction or voting block'. It appears that Cookshat knows Jemma Green to be making specific and unsubstantiated statements like this. Would you concur this appears to be Conflict Editing? I have edited the page to include independent councillor again and cited a reference and justification. In looking at Cookshat's edits of other pages, the user is making negative edits of numerous other people in politics in Perth. Most of the edits that are not constructive, and when other people have corrected them, Cookshat has repeatedly changed the edits back.

Jeffreymarkrogers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs) 23 March 2017 6.41 (WST)

JMR - The Jemma Green article was nominated for a CSD by Cookshat on March 20 - and the nomination was denied. That's actually what led to me being brought into this article. He/she has since voted to keep the article in the Afd. Do I think it's justified? The CSD wasn't appropriate - but it's very likely that the AfD decision will be to delete the article from the way the voting is going.

I think that there are point of view issues with both you and Cookshat - but I do see that there is an effort by Cookshat to work through issues on the article talk page, which is very helpful. Whether there's a conflict of interest issue, I don't know, though.

Regarding the use of "Independent", please see Talk:Jemma Green. If you choose not to interact with the discussions, that's fine, but going around the discussions isn't good. I left you a message on the article talk page about this - and that the title is actually Councillor, not Independent Councillor. This all came up with attempts to make it "Public servant" which is clearly wrong. I am having a hard time understanding why this is an issue.

His/her edits on other pages aren't germaine right now to this article, and there are others watching the pages that should be looking for improper edits, but I will take a look.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]