Talk:Jason Pontin

message: There's been a lot of additions of "resume" style updates with no notable reference links. Investments and job titles should only be included when there are high quality 3rd party references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.91.159 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The content you removed was sourced. Meatsgains(talk) 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Better? This is uncontroversial information. Meatsgains(talk) 23:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Its behind a paywall but he's referenced... Meatsgains(talk) 23:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Notable Sources

message: It appears from the history that this page was created as a reference for a rather POV series of articles complaining about Pontin's criticism of de Grey.  Is that "controversy" even relevant in an encyclopedic entry on Pontin?  Knotnic 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV]]

message: Jason Pontin writes: while the person who added the details of my January 28th, 2007 column in The New York Times was clearly irritated by the story, I do not think the column deserves mention on this wiki page. The article wasn't that controversial (at least in the sense that not many people paid it much attention), and it seems odd to single out one story from the thousands that I have written over the years.  Would some one without any conflict of interest remove it?
On top of being peeved at being outed, the above commenter is trolling Jason Pontin's social media posts and in general making a pest of himself, demonstrating that his deletion request is just as extension of defacement in other media.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.52.24 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times column

message: An image used in this article, "File:JASON PONTIN.jpg", has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:JASON PONTIN.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Most of the "recognition" section refers to Folio Magazine awards. Are those notable enough for inclusion? Folio Magazine itself has very little press coverage. John Nagle (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Awards from a publication which itself is not notable enough for a WP article are probably not notable enouh for inclusion. - Brianhe (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folio Magazine awards 

message: Following de-peacocking after 10 years of the user self-editing, so little actually remains cited and notable the article is not in a good state Deku-shrub (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pontin does enough of significance outside of Technology Review. The merge is not a good idea. Jeffery Thomas 00:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have deleted the merge notation on the page because given the above note it's clear Deku-shrub has something against Pontin. Jeffery Thomas 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please focus on the edits not the editor. The merge proposal was legitimate in my opinion and I have restored it. For the record, I have no feelings about Pontin one way or the other. - Brianhe (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  Seems sufficiently-notable to me to warrant own page, esp. by Jimbo's "notable means verifiable" notion of notability. How to resolve? as this is a messy top-note to the MIT Tech Review page. I vote resolve to not merge. Comments?, or is two against enough? (full disclosure: i've got no skin in this game) Tim bates (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  Professional arguments over ideas would be inappropriate to include in the Technology Review page but are sufficiently interesting to merit keeping; I found them useful when I was checking his background today. Don't merge for me. 24.5.197.180 (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Don't merge - sufficient notability per above arguments. The discussion link at the top of the MIT Technology Review article mistakenly goes to that article's talk page - I'll fix it now.  This proposed merge is coming up on six months - seems like a long time. If this was AfD it would be closed as no consensus by now, and the hatnotes removed. Timtempleton (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge to MIT Technology Review