User talk:Bigfatjr

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan ressler

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Jonathan ressler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Jonathan ressler and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jonathan ressler, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked on the talk page of the self promotion piece you have written about yourself words to the effect of "What is an advertisement about the article.

The answer is that, well referenced or not, it is a piece of rampant self glorification. People often discover when creating articles about themselves in Wikipedia that they are, perhaps, not as notable as they believe, and that their flowing and gushing prose is stripped away.

So, the article is not neutral in style. It is florid and overblown. Your style is that of anb advertising man, not a writer of encyclopaedias. And you would, as wikipedia policies say, have been better to wait until someone else wrote an article about you. Now, for good or ill, your piece will be dismembered by other editors. It may even come to a consensus that yiu are not notable enough to appear in the organ. That is for others to judge, not you and not me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. You have violated one or more of our rules, including rules against adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, using Wikipedia for promotion, and editing inappropriately with a conflict of interest. This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia's policies. Although Wikipedia has a great many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals here, you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} below this message box.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information.

--Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Alright, chummer, I'm certainly willing to unblock you given the below. Happy editing!

Request handled by: Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Are you committing to abide by our rules about not editing or writing any articles about yourself, your brands, your websites, etc., or otherwise engaging in promotion? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sure am, but I do have a question. I am a legitimate marketer with a lot of media and positive press. I see that people in various industries (other than celebrities and athletes) have entries written about them. How would I go about having an entry written about me (all verifiable stuff) in a way that does not violate the rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfatjr (talk • contribs)

You wouldn't. If you are genuinely notable, somebody else will write an impartial article about you, as I recently did about Thakur Ram Lal, somebody I never met or heard about until today, and of whose political party I am not fond. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the undertaking above I support this user's request for unblocking. He is likely to be a useful editor on topics that are not a conflict of interest. He has met the problem users often have when they write about themselves. It is a salutary thing to find that Wikipedia is a different slice of the real world. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your posts

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I get it now. Yes, I will abide by all of the rules and certainly never intended to break them when I wrote the article. I guess I will have to wait until someone else writes me up!! I would appreciate if you unblock me. You will not have any future issues with me as I now better understand the way it works. Bigfatjr (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Bigfatjr (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps

I am willing to guide you through some of the minefields of WIkipedia. You have had a baptism of fire. It happens. Every single editor here has made some sort of mistake. The great thing is to get the big ones out of the way early on!

If I have any useful advice to offer you it is that this place is not a gentle place. While it is, in its way, social media, many of the editors here are a tad unsociable, and some are truly anti-social. It is not unlike the early days of IRC, bulletin boards and earlier interaction schemes. So the very best way to start, to wipe out, if you like, the debt of mistakes, is to contribute initially to articles that need minor enhancements.

This is a sort of "pay to play" scheme, but not really. It allows you to get used to the style of the place, and the way some edits are accepted and others pretty much immediately reverted.

The one thing you are likely to find very hard is writing neutrally. You are used to trade puffery, hype, buzzwords and high pressure environments. You can write PR as a natural style. And that is a thing you have to unlearn here. What "we" need is flat, undemonstrative, well crafted prose containing citations to reliable sources. So try very hard to make sure that every item you add to an article has a citation. And have a look at {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} to se how to create excellence in citation.

Be prepared to have what you see as "your" work ripped to shreds, and be pleased for that to happen. It means that someone has chosen to make what they consider to be an improvement to your labours. But know that you may revert vandalism and may correct any factual inaccuracies, or remove and improve poorly crafted prose.

For the first article you create, don;t strain to find a topic. They hit you naturally as you go about your business. If you find something, perhaps a windmill, perhaps a notable person, that is not in Wikipedia, create, quietly, a well referenced mini-article, a stub, post trhat, and then work quietly to improve it. Sometimes other editors will join you along the way, sometimes not. But the main thing you need to remember is that, as soon as you press submit the article is released into the wild and must take its chances. You are its father, not its mother.

I hope that helps some. If you want to reply, reply here. If you need to talk to me about soemthing else, please just leave a message on my own talk page. If I don;t reply for a few days, well, that;s because I've not been here :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Jonathan Ressler 770.jpg

The file File:Jonathan Ressler 770.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]