^{User talk:}Jimfbleak

Please add your message to the bottom of this page, give it a heading and sign it using four tildes ~~~~.

This page is currently semi-protected due to persistent vandalism
If you can't edit here, leave a message on your talk page.
You will need to start it with my user name [[User:Jimfbleak]] and sign it with four tildes (~~~~) in the same edit
Thank you.

A kitten for you!

Thanks Jim, for your quick admin actions on CSD.

Maliner (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maliner, many thanks, not sure the deletees feel the same Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

page: Palallad2

Oh I'm so sorry, I thought I could try my own creative creation on my page. I have a request. Could you please send me an e-mail with the deleted text from my website (the whole text). This is very important to me. To this e-mail (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Palallad2 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Palallad2: Please enable email in your preferences. It's not a good idea to post private info here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue with the e-mail, but this is my additional e-mail. I would like to ask you to send the deleted source text from my page to jantata405@gmail.com. This is very important to me :( Palallad2 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palallad2 for reasons that i don't understand, neither the text nor the wikicode seem to paste into an email, perhaps too much data? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, could you split the text then? And send the whole thing in a few emails. I would be very grateful. Palallad2 (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palallad2 Let's keep it simple. I'll post the text here shortly, take a copy as soon as possible because it can't stay there indefinitely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palallad2 Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Palallad2 (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Maheshwari

Hi @Jimfbleak, I noticed that you have protected the Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari and that it was previously handled by @SilkTork and @RHaworth. It seems there has been a history of promotional content and copyright issues around this draft. I also saw that @Liz salted the namespace, which I think is a good step (it was previously salted by @Jo-Jo Eumerus and @SpacemanSpiff).

I have read the through discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Maheshwari and I understand that the consensus in 2020 was to delete after a thorough review. It seems that the subject has been consistently trying to assert notability in Indian media and there’s a troubling history of undisclosed paid recreation attempts.

That said, I believe the subject may now have a more balanced set of neutral sources, including some that address controversies. I would like to draft a new, neutral article over time, but I want to make a note to you that I have no connection to the subject and have not been paid to do this. I am not rushing to work on it, but would proceed gradually as I get time. Thanks for your consideration.

Best regards, Macrobreed2 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macrobreed2 while I have no objection in principle, I notice that you are a relatively inexperienced editor and that you have had a number of drafts deleted or declined. Given the controversial history of the Sandeep Maheshwari article and the fact it was deleted after discussion, I suggest that you concentrate on getting your existing drafts accepted so that it's clearer that you are capable of rescuing that page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jimfbleak's comment above. SilkTork (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jimfbleak and @SilkTork, Thank you both for your feedback. I completely understand your concerns and appreciate your advice. I will focus on my existing drafts for now. Thanks again for your time and consideration! Best regards, Macrobreed2 (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321

I posted a topic on the talk page relating to Oliver James psychologist. I am that person, though I am not sure how I can prove it. I am not very wikiliterate and am being royally outfoxed by experienced wikipedians, and need some help. My topic was the claim that there has been ideological bias in the editing of my page. At no point has anyone engaged with the issues it raises, instead it has been removed from the talk page. How do I get it reinstate? The post was as follows:

IDEOLOGICAL BIAS OF EDITORS ON THIS PAGE?

[edit]

The article on 'ideological bias on Wikipedia' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia states that 'Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic. Collectively, findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing ideological views are at least as neutral as other similar sources, but articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer—or more ideologically homogeneous—contributors are more likely to reflect an editorial bias.' I think it is accurate to state that not one of the 'editors' on this page have made any attempt to balance out the wholly negative account of my career by showing alternatives to their views (martinevans123; GDX420 (who often seems like evans' mouthy alter ego...); and newcomers John and NebY). Whilst the authors of Killing Spree and 'factually incorrect comment' topics seem loosely positive, the vast majority of the edits come from Evans and his fellow travellers.

For example, I have pointed out that it would be very simple for an editor to create a Journalism section here; due to vandalism, where once there used to be such a section but somebody removed it, all references to the fact that I did columns in 6 national newspapers has been completely excised from this article, as has reference to the hundred of features I wrote 1989-2016. I may do this new section myself, but I lay down a challenge to the editors to do this as part of their role of 'representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.' The newspapers were The Observer (3 years in the magazine), The Guardian (in the family section), The Sunday Telegraph, the Independent and two others, which I will see if your forensic skills - so evident in attempts to try and discredit my sources - I will leave it to you to discover.

Another example. None of you noticed (or else, deliberately suppressed the fact) that the article by Deborah Orr which was added to the Criticism section which wrongly precedes the account of my works (it should be positioned after readers have been able to explore what is being criticized and renames 'reception of works' to regain balance) provoked two letters from highly respected psychologists, both of whom defended my position. In the case of Evans, this is particularly surprising in that he seems to have an encylopaedic knowledge of anything that might seem critical of me (indeed, is happy for 'reception of work' to be changed to 'criticism') but a total ignorance of the far more numerous plauditory and supportive positive digital comments. The two letters are to be found at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/14/mental-illness-and-familial-influences. Which of you supposedly neutral editors concerned as Wikipedians to represent 'all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic' would like to insert these letters after the Orr insertion in the 'Criticism' section? I have a feeling it will be done reluctantly, if at all, and in Evans' case, will be the first time in many edits that he has drawn the reader's attention to a positive counter view to the exclusively negative material which he puts in this article. I also suspect if it does get done that it will be done seeking the least damaging passages, if any of the content is presented. Whilst its true that Richard Bentall's defence of me is alluded to in the reception of works section, it is given far less primacy than Ritchie, as is the case of the articles I wrote (whose content is largely ignored).

Even the most biassed of 'editors' could find examples of positive accounts of my works very easily as the internet has far more of them than negatives; I shall not list them here, saving that for another time, perhaps. However, I would pick out two particularly striking examples, both of which relate to my book Not In Your Genes, hostility to which, I suspect, unites the 'fewer—or more ideologically homogeneous—contributors are more likely to reflect an editorial bias' that have contributed to this page. How else could it be that a Reception of Works section on my career could make no mention of any of the 12 other books I wrote, the 10 television series (and 7 individual documentaries) and the 6 newspaper columns? It should be recalled that the foundation of this page dates back to the period after Not in Your Genes was published, it was after that publication that all references to my real career were largely excluded from the article, and when I put them back in, immediately removed.

One positive response to Not In Your Genes is the review of that book in the Independent at https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/not-in-your-genes-the-real-reasons-children-are-like-their-parents-by-oliver-james-book-review-a6919391.html Why is this not part of the reception of the book?

The other is Start The Week Radio 4 programme, of which I am sure Evans will be aware and not want mentioned on here, as it presents a properly rounded discussion of the finding that the Human Genome Project has been unable to find any significant evidence that genes determine our psychology: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071skp5 Both of these should be added to the (renamed) 'Reception of Works' section, to provide a measure of balance.

But the exclusive focus of that section on Not In Your Genes is itself a startling example of the collective bias seen here: there is no mention in that section at all of the much more widely read and influential 3 bestsellers I have written (They F You Up, Affluenaza and Contented Dementia, each of which has sold over 130,000+ copies). What does that tell you about the neutrality of the editors, what does it say about their main objective: to make out I am merely a pop pscyhologist whose work has no supporters? I could (and may in due course) add hundreds of other links to positive material here. But for now, I challenge the editors named above to explore the links suggested above and to present them in a fair way as part of this article: a section that acknowledges the national newspaper columns I did and the hundreds of features; the letters contradicting Orr; and the Independent review and discussion on Start the Week of Not In Your Genes. Over to you.

Singleton4321 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321 You don't have to prove who you are, although writing about yourself is discouraged. The article about you exists, and so does the ideology article, so not sure what you are after, especially as I've never edited the latter as far as I remember. I've hidden the text dump cluttering up this page, since I can read the article anyway, you just needed a link.

As for the comments on the autobiography talk page, your were attempting to justify your self-serving article my attacking the motives of others, so no sympathy here, I'm afraid Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Jim	Talk	Contribs	Sandbox	Logs	Blocks	Deletions	Protections	Scripts	Bird talk	Commons