User talk:Jmeilleur

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Executive Education and Professional Development has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. buecherwuermlein talk here, please 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Executive Education and Professional Development at University of St. Thomas

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Executive Education and Professional Development at University of St. Thomas, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Executive Education and Professional Development at University of St. Thomas is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Executive Education and Professional Development at University of St. Thomas, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Professional Development

Hello Jmeilleur,

Thank you for your working in maintaining Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know there was know mal intent, nor promotional intent with the content added. Honestly, I am not interested in promoting a project. I've asked administrators to to remove all references in the history to NPDCI is possible, please do so. I'm much more interested in the public having access to quality information.

I'm also asking persons editing the page in the last week for their insight in making a solid contribution to Wikipedia on this topic and am very interested in your insight/recommendation.

The history of the contribution goes like this: I maintain a network listserv (not a group or organization, but an open network) of 1,030 professional development providers representing well over 100,000 early childhood educators in the field. After a recent national conference many persons on the listserv were interested in improving Wikipedia's definition of "Professional Development". This is where our method (pre-vetting) may have gone awry.

In an effort to make a solid contribution, we called for nominees and had 40 persons end up participating in a pre-Wikipedia sandbox representing a range of education, experience and expertise across the country (including persons with publications on professional development running into the thousands). Over the course of 2 months, together we created an open, uncopyrighted, well-vetted, synthesized joint definition of professional development elaborating on what Wikipedia had in place. We then ran it through a variety of other listservs for vetting. Last week we made a contribution to Wikipedia. Unfortunately that was perceived as spam and self-promotion. I definitely can see how this could have been perceived as promoting our organization. The flip side is if it were posted by Bob2008 there would have be no reference to the effort that went into the contribution. The contribution repeatedly coming down in the last few days has very much confused and frustrated a loose-nit network of individuals with no real intent but expanding an existing definition that needed expanding.

I read through the reads you and others recommended in editing our posts. These folks and I really want to operate within bounds. Do you have any recommendations on relaying the good work contributed by so many knowledgeable, well-meaning persons to the public via Wikipedia? For example, should we abandon all prior month's efforts and steer folks directly to Wikipedia for edits? Other ideas, suggestions or recommendations? Thanks again for your insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan d green (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of O'Neill Brothers

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article O'Neill Brothers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability has not been established. Reads like an advertisement.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. لennavecia 20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)