^{User talk:}Jimfbleak

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

Deletion of entry Binaytara Foundation

The page for Binaytara Foundation has been deleted after it was requested to be moved to Binaytara. The reason for deletion was promotional reasons. I do not want the content to come off as promotional at all, but I do want it to be accurate as a normal encyclopedic entry like these other similar organizations listed on Wikipedia: Cure4Kids , PATH , Partners in Health , Global Oncology. Would you or someone you know who is better using/editing Wikipedia articles than me be willing to republish the page and keep just neutral informational content? I am happy to rewrite it to be more neutral if you would consider republishing it please? Thank you so much. Joanvaljean (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Joanvaljean[reply]

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page Chinmay Gaur

Hello Jimfbleak,

I am the original author of Draft:Chinmay Gaur, which was deleted under G11. I understand the need to enforce promotional policy. However, I believe the content may have been misjudged or could have been improved with guidance instead of immediate deletion.

I request a copy of the deleted content so I can revise it in accordance with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards.

– User:Rajat K26 — Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 21. —Cryptic 11:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page, largely unsourced promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cellina G11

I have been going through that user's creations because they don't create them with talk pages and saw the G11 of Cellina... I think there might be some misunderstanding here, from what I can tell this editor is not purposefully creating promotional articles but uses a businessman's English as a Second Language which can have the effect of appearing that way... But looking at their contributions, they are just so broad in scope that I can't believe that they are actually engaging in promotion and I don't think that there is any way to spin what they do as unambiguous advertising or promotion even though I've never seen that article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back Cellina offers a wide range of products... Known for its affordable price point and frequent product innovation, the brand is available in major Taiwanese retailers... The brand is also famous amongst the Overseas Taiwanese and Chinese community... the Cellina classic cream acts as a mild to rich body moisturiser that is claimed to nourish, soften, whiten, and repair skin of all ages. I obviously agreed with the G11 CSD nomination, and deleted it on the basis that it's pure spam; I can't see any ambiguity in that. Whether they are actively promoting anywhere else, I don't know, since I only took a cursory look at their other contributions, but I don't accept that there is any misunderstanding with this one. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That text you quoted isn't WP:SPAM... It is not exclusively promotional and could be easily rewritten, G11 is not met. You have convinced me that you are wrong where before I only suspected it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also still confused as to how you could believe that to be pure spam but took no action other than deleting the article... Why didn't you even advise the author of our policy against promotion if you genuinely believed that they violated it? I just don't see how the behavior could be so egregious that it merits a speedy delete of the article but literally no other action whatsoever, you need to actually explain that administrative decision. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back I believe I've explained my reasons to you. If you believe that the text I've quoted is neutral, factual encyclopaedic material, I dread to think what you imagine promotion would look like. And what's your interest in this? The editor concerned hasn't complained Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you quoted doesn't have to be "neutral, factual encyclopaedic material" it just has to have to potential to be rewritten as such... At least thats what G11 says "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." you don't actually appear to be applying the standard from G11 here. My interest is in improving the encycopedia and ensuring that out guidelines and policies are being followed... When I see someone making a mistake I talk to them and lets be clear... I only choose to engage when I'm almost certainly right... If I have brought a concern to you take it seriously because I will take it all the way (see for example Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 1). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back "rewritten" isn't the same as "need to start from scratch". I can't see that I haven't taken your comments seriously, unless you interpret disagreement as such. Anyway, you know your way around, so you have a remedy to go to Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly would not need to start from scratch, what you have quoted is very serviceable. It already has nods to NPOV like "claimed" (which is a style issue) which demonstrate that it was not unambiguous promotion. If you don't believe that it can be done and I do then the only AGF solution I see from you is to draftify the article and let me take a whack at it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back OK, I,m logging off shortly, but I'll do that tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, when you get around to it you get around to it. Thank you for giving me a chance to get the article right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, now at User:Horse Eye's Back/Cellina. Courtesy ping XYZ1233212 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y-B-F-L

I made a contribution to Wikipedia 7 years, ago. It was concerning the yellow-bellied Flycatcher and the difference of 4 seconds, from the call of the Least Flycatcher. How do I get it cited correctly?JohnChristopherBates (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)JohnCristopherBatesJohnChristopherBates (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JohnChristopherBates You have already mentioned this in the thread at the top of this page. If you know the source, either a url for a web page, a journal article, book page or whatever, I'll help you format it correctly. If you don't know where you got the information from, I can't really help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Deletion: Bart Harrison

Hi Jimfbleak,

I’m a big fan of motorsport and with the new racing season starting in May, I’d like to contribute by creating Wikipedia pages for some of the newly emerging drivers.

I saw that my first draft article about Bart Harrison was deleted due to concerns about promotional tone, lack of notability, and insufficient sources. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s guidelines, but I would like to clarify a few points and get your advice.

In that draft, I used sources from well-known platforms in the motorsport world (such as Feeder Series and other respected media within that niche). The driver in question has competed in and won races in highly competitive European series—ones where many current Formula 1 drivers also started their careers.

Could you please clarify what kind of sources or achievements would be considered sufficient to pass the notability threshold for young racing drivers? I’d really like to contribute correctly and avoid making similar mistakes in future drafts.

Thank you in advance for your time and guidance.

Best regards, Lukas Wunderlich (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sandbox page title "Amal Tunga"

Hi, can I retrieve the article so I can rewrite according to the guidelines.

Thanks Samanfern (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Draft:Chris Fowler

Hello, the first draft of this advised that I needed better references, so I went through and added these, but after I resubmitted you have deleted it with the reason G11/self promotion vanity page. My identity is public and I am definitely not Chris Fowler! This draft follows lots of other pages I have written on notable archaeologists, and Fowler meets the notability guidelines for academics. I am hoping this is a misunderstanding, can you retrieve the draft and I will continue to improve it? If there are queries around notability can we please discuss on the talk page and I can provide more evidence? Thank you. Drlmshillito [[User:Drlmshillito|Drlmshillito]] (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:Purity Waswa/sandbox

Hi Jimfbleak, I saw that my sandbox was deleted under G11, and I completely understand the intent to keep promotional content out. I just wanted to share that the page was still being actively edited and hadn't been submitted yet.

I’m now rewriting it fully with a neutral tone, strong sourcing, and based on notability guidelines. Would you recommend restoring the previous sandbox, or should I continue in a new draft space? Either way, I appreciate your time and would welcome any advice as I rework the article.

Thanks again, Purity Waswa (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page, no proper references Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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