Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 30, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept January 1, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed February 24, 2022 Articles for deletion Deleted March 4, 2022 Deletion review Overturned

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have removed these details from the lead again. The listing of professions and activities in the lead section should focus on the topic's main professions and activities, and reflect the coverage and weight of details in the article's main body (omitting occasional and secondary activities). With the current minimal coverage of these aspects in the main text it is clear that these details are not noteworthy enough to be included in the lead for now (see MOS:LEAD). GermanJoe (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy generally is not "one and done" activity so excluding that is opposite of the value of an article about a person? You, Ronz, and others act like adding more, verifiable, TRUE information is the end of the world. Why? What does it personally harm any of you to add these verifiable details about this person? You shout, UNDUE, SOAP, COI, and so many other slurs to scare of or block other editors. Articles in sources like The New York Times, meanwhile, are blatantly ignored! Just what is the COI going on here, and what miracle of press would it take to convince biased COI editors of the truth? Finally, in regards to the Seattle Times source (used almost exclusively???) that is a regional publication. Unless that material was syndicated by the AP (it wasn't) then you're taking regional details and exploding them out to global proportions WHILE ignoring the actual global activities like Moon Express. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It's well past time to shine the light on these activities! Mike in il (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA (unproven personal allegations are a form of personal attack on Wikipedia), and comment on content not on other contributors. For the record: I rarely edit this article, and am not connected to the topic in any way or form (neither pro- or anti-Jain). Content-related disagreements happen all the time as part of the collaborative process on Wikipedia. Such criticisms are not "slurs" or some kind of conspiracy against the topic or disagreeing editors. Also, WP:NPOV (including the referenced "undue weight" aspect) is one of Wikipedia's core policies - this policy is not negotiable, and any content violating it should be removed or improved. Regarding your concern about coverage: notable related sub-topics like Moon Express have separate main articles. Information about such related topics should only be covered in succinct summary style here. Additional detailed information about the company and its activities should be placed in the linked main article (to avoid redundancy and content forks). GermanJoe (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding past discussions.I'm unaware of problems using TechCrunch as a source. I believe there are many more sources available to use. Let's see what we can find: --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found a past discussion: Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_2#Intelius_settlement --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussion that didn't get much response: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#techcrunch.com --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as problems with using TechCrunch, the recent discussions highlight their use of press releases, problems reporting where they have a conflict of interest, and inconsistent quality: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221#Are_news_articles_written_by_TechCrunch_staff_considered_RS? --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/18/naveen-jains-intelius-begins-to-crumble-good/

  A follow-up article from TechCrunch. Look like it has some sources if we decide not to use TechCrunch directly. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• http://archive.seattleweekly.com/2009-03-18/news/intelius-and-the-dubious-art-of-post-transaction-marketing/

  From the above TechCrunch article. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2009/10/intelius_hit_with_class_action_lawsuit.html

  A subsequently published article about a related lawsuit about the same complaints. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2009/03/Naveen_Jain_in_the_hot_seat_again_after_Seattle_Weekly_expose.html

  About the Seattle Weekly article. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• http://archive.fortune.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0910/gallery.40under40_where_now.fortune/4.html

  Short blurb. Might be useful if editors are questioning noteworthiness and relationship to Jain. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/0238341267.shtml

  Looks like an opinion piece that's probably not usable. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-study/intelius-litigation

  Primary source. Doubt we could use this, but gives details that may be worth following up (name of law firm, name of case). --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.seattletimes.com/business/intelius-agrees-to-pay-13-million-settlement-in-consumer-complaint-case/

  Details about settlement. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.seattletimes.com/business/expedia-intelius-classmates-slapped-by-senate-report/

  Doesn't mention Jain. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.seattletimes.com/business/intelius-unplugs-cellphone-directory-service/

  This is about a different set of complaints having to do with a cellphone directory service. Ends with The chief executive of Intelius, Naveen Jain, also founded InfoSpace, an Internet search and directory company that soared during the dot-com frenzy, then crashed. --Ronz (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.seattletimes.com/business/intelius-shuts-down-cellphone-directory/

  I'm having difficulty accessing it, but it appears to be a variation of the above article. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/5/infospace-ceo-naveen-jain-s-latest-scam-intelius

  Probably not usable. Connects the business practices that resulted in the complaints to problems with their ipo. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/technology/1012/gallery.data_miners/3.html

  Another short blurb that could be used to demonstrate noteworthiness and connection to Jain. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronz! I noticed you spend heaps of time for this article. Once I tried to edit the article, you reverted my edits. Let me take part in some article's issues. Here is an analysis of what Naveen Jain is notable for. I think it will definitely be helpful for us in our further editing. Together we will make Wikipedia better! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are written from a historical context, and high-quality sources are required for BLPs. Could you please revise your list to include only such articles? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Historical content"?:) very interesting... Could you please provide me with the rules confirming it? Maybe you mean this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Use_up-to-date_evidence ? I am sorry, but it doesn't work as it's only for medicine where you are the Guru no doubt. By the way, you have done plenty of nice contributions to medical articles! Good work!:) 2) Please point the sources from the table you claim as not enough reliable. We will have further discussion on it. And last but not least, if you think something is wrong you should improve it, not make me do it. Because it is easier to pull down than to build. Stop your long-lasting reverts, please start to build! Yours respectfully, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage in, garbage out. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•What a respectable answer, Ronz! So, you have just proved you can't provide any Wikipedia rule, that confirms your claims. The claims were irrelevant. It's ok, as he who makes no mistakes, makes nothing. Thus, please leave in peace the article, I will take care of it in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am sure, medical field of Wikipedia needs your contributions much more. Dear Ronz, I wish you good work! :) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you took such offense to my answer. I've struck it out.

Please WP:FOC.

I suggest you read WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV with Garbage in, garbage out in mind. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•Dear Ronz, 1) you still haven't answered my questions above. I demand you answer my questions. 2) what a random set of rules you offered me in your previous message? I spent a pleanty of time to read it all again more times and yet it's nothing again. So, please at least take responsibility for your claims in future in order I could save my time. Respectfully, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As we are all volunteers, no one can "demand" anything of anyone.

I've formatted this thread a bit, moving the table up, collapsing it, and adding a discussion section down here to save scrolling.

Many of the links in that table are horrible - press releases, blatant churnalism, tabloids, blog posts. We build Wikipedia articles from high quality, independent, secondary sources. Think "New York Times". Wikipedia is not the blogosphere.Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, Thank You for helping with the table. Now it's really more comfortable. I used the word "demand" in this meaning: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ru/%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C/%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/demand. Meaning 1: "to demand=to ask for something forcefully, in a way that shows that you do not expect to be refused". Hope the Cambridge dictionary is a good source to explain what I meant. I really didn't expected to be refused as all we are here to make good contributions and so should be responsible for our words. But I am more interested to be useful for Wikipedia rather than to sort our interpersonal relationships out. Let's live in peace and do good things, contributing to Wikipedia:)

So, dear ally, let's come closer to the issues. Please help me to understand which of the sources you would not use to fix the article? You can name them and we will discuss. Without your help in poing on inappropriate sources we won't be able to fix the article. Please name the sources. And please contribute something to this article as you are interested in helping with it. I am sure you have some ideas how to make the article better in accordance with all Policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Together we will make Wikipedia better!:) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lidiia Kondratieva, I think it best to first resolve the behavioral problems demonstrated here and elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

♦Dear Ronz, thanks for explanation on your reverts, but I would be extremely happy if you could discuss each revert on the article's talkpage. You've mentioned that "expansion is not about Jain". But as I see some people ( as Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Elon Musk ) who are also well-known and have similar activity as Naveen Jain, have lots of info in their personal Wikipedia articles about their businesses and its description. About their businesses, not about them. So, probably you are going to remove/reduce the information about SpaceX from Elon Musk's article? I don't think so. But you can try if you think it's "not about" Elon Musk. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make an edit request. --Ronz (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ronz! Is it required within Wikipedia rules? I would be happy to discuss any question. You reverted my last edit as "SOAP". Please prove it is really SOAP. Thank you Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ronz, what are we going to do with what is Jain "notable for"? I analysed the notability above (see the table). The article must match it, if we're working in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Infospace takes about 1,5% of the notability. How can we ignore the fact? Moon Express - 40%. Currently the article is heavily slanted against Jain. Wikipedia must be balanced and neutral. The article doesn't meet the requirements. The article contains defamatory content under the provisions of WP:BLP; inappropriate information for the lead. A big issue is the source Seattle Times usage, see WP:RSVETTING, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Some other issues: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, WP:DE, Wikipedia:Controversial articles, etc. and finally WP:BALASP. I don't see anyone builds the article. Build it please, considering the percentage from the notability table. As I see, there are no offers and attempts to add/remove some sources from the table (even if we remove some sources, the result will be the same. We both know it), so I can conclude you agree with the data.

And before you start your contributions to the article, I would be very pleased if you could answers to all my questions. Please respect a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - WP:AGF. Remain diplomatic and answer me here, not on my personal talkpage as Wikipedia is a community effort. Thank you, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted many of the sources you brought are poor, and if we were to base WEIGHT on them we would end up with a poor distribution of WEIGHT.

Please identify specifically what content you believe is "defamatory." Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, thank you for your message. Please remove poor sources from the table, providing a proof they are really poor in Wikipedia. Please identify specifically what sources you believe are "poor". Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are poor sources. Churnalism (lightly edited press releases) are poor sources. Blogs are poor sources. Tabloids are poor sources. And finally, in discussions of notability, sources that only have passing mentions are not acceptable. This is described in WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:N. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again if you are going to make very strong claims like "defamatory" you must be more specific. Please see WP:NLT which is policy; be wary of throwing around legalistic language.Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your messages. Jytdog, I don't ask you to explain what are press releases or if blogs and tabloids are RSs. I don't except any point of view, but it must be proved. I should ask you again: "Please identify specifically what sources you believe are "poor"". Please point out, name the poor sources, remove them. And after that let's see if it influences the percentage notability table.

Jytdog, there is no need to go into extremes. Don't know why you think about a legal matter, but I am hoping the article will be fixed within Wikipedia. At first, please identify the difference between "defamation" and "libel". Let's check it: 1) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/defamation Defamation — the act of harming someone's reputation by saying or writing bad things about them. 2) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/libel Libel — a piece of writing that contains bad and false things about a person. So, as you see the first meaning is suitable for our case. The article is heavily slanted against Jain and the balancing aspects wish for the better. WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, WP:WBA, WP:DISRUPT and finally WP:TENDENTIOUS. Have a good day, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not completely threading, making a mess of this discussion, and this is the last time I will reply to a non-threaded comment, as I don't want to keep dealing with this disregard for our norms. I told you that this is a basic here as "please" and "thank you" and you keep ignoring this basic thing that we all do here.

If you understand what press releases, churnalism, tabloids, and blogs are, you are capable yourself of weeding out the bad refs in your list. Likewise if you understand that in a discussion of notability, passing mentions don't matter, you are also capable of removing sources that only have passing mentions.

When I said you need to be specific about defamation, I didn't mean defining what it means, but rather what content, specifically, you see as "defamatory". The specific content. Before you answer please be sure you understand that WP:NPOV does not mean "balanced", it means "reflects the WEIGHT given in independent sources". Everything starts with what strong sources say. We don't go looking for additional sources (and especially not low quality ones) to provide "balance". That is not what we do here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, thank you for your message. I corrected all my threading. Sorry for this.

"The specific content" is all the description about Infospace. "Defamation — the act of harming someone's reputation by saying or writing bad things about them". Is it good what is written in the Infospace section? I don't think so. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still failing to understand what NPOV means and how Wikipedia works. That content is all sourced from high quality sources and accurately summarizes them with respect to what he did while he was at infospace. I should warn you that you are skirting very, very close to violating WP:NLT.

Rather than continuing to waste your own time and mine, and risking an indefinite block, I suggest you propose content about what Jain did at Infospace that could be added, based on high quality sources. (note I have fixed all the threading in this bit, after you fixed yours) Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I start to realize how Wikipedia works. "high quality sources" can provide negative information. Wikipedia is not about subjective bias, I am hoping. Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Jytdog, do you suggest me to add some content to the existing novel about what Jain did at Infospace or you suggest me to write the material for the novel's replacement? Please explain.

Where I'm "still failing to understand" is about your partner's claim "SOAP" here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naveen_Jain&oldid=829832273. Could you please explain me why it's "SOAP"? I like such your answers) I don't like your threats about blocking. And thank you for your fixed threading. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"SOAP" = WP:PROMO - your (not very good English, I am sorry to say) edit was puffing up this article with content about the company's plans The content was a) not about Jain, but rather the company; b) not about what has already happened, but about big plans for the future. Very clearly promotional. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably someone who wrote Elon Musk's article (SpaceX section) has "not very good English" (refering to your words above). I wrote the material from the SpaceX section pattern. The same pattern, but info about Jain and MoonEx. Haven't you noticed it, Jytdog? So what about your "a)" and "b)"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#SpaceX, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naveen_Jain&oldid=829832273#Moon_Express do you see? Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has been pointed to you. Pages in WP about Musk and his companies are rarely anything like WP articles but are rather hijacked pages that are fancruft. That is not the model you should be looking to.Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it was edited by fans? Have checked it/can you prove it? Do you think Naveen Jain's article was never edited by fans? Or Jain is not so good to have fans?) I am his fan and I am here. Millions of people know Naveen Jain. Ask Google if you don't believe me.

Here is what you called "not very good English". Please compare the section descriptions (SpaceX and MoonEx) of two IT entrepreneurs: 1) Musk founded Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, in May 2002. = Jain co-founded Moon Express in August 2010. 2) Musk is chief executive officer (CEO) and chief technology officer (CTO) of the Hawthorne, California-based company. = He is a chairman of the Mountain View, California-based company. 3) SpaceX develops and manufactures space launch vehicles with a focus on advancing the state of rocket technology. = Moon Express builds machine-operated spacecraft to mine materials like gold, cobalt, platinum, and Helium-3 (nuclear energy fuel) from the moon. 4) Musk's goal is to reduce the cost of human spaceflight by a factor of 10. = Jain's goal is reducing the costs of human spaceflight. 5) In Ashlee Vance's biography, Musk stated that he wants to establish a Mars colony by 2040, with a population of 80,000. Musk stated in June 2016 that the first unmanned flight of the larger Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT) spacecraft is aimed for departure to the red planet in 2022, to be followed by the first manned MCT Mars flight departing in 2024. = Jain stated in August 2016, in The New York Times, that his company's aim is exploration of space resources as land and water. The company expects that water can also be used as a source of oxygen to reduce the amount of material rockets have to carry on take off. 6) His goals include reducing global warming through sustainable energy production and consumption, and reducing the "risk of human extinction" by establishing human colony on Mars. = Jain claims his target for Moon Express is colonization of the Moon by 2022.

Looks as like as two peas, do you agree? Still "SOAP"? Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow the discussion at COIN to play out. This discussion is not productive and I will not be replying here further. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]. Give the discussions above, I think that this latest bit of edit-warring is disruptive. I've left an discretionary sanctions alert and think that Arbitration Enforcement is the next line of dispute resolution for this situation, regardless of whether or not there is paid editing involved this time around. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]