User talk:Elizabeth Grzeszczyk

Jonathan Kern - COI

You are so involved, please stop editing the article at all, please restrict your contributions to the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that you tube link is not a WP:RS. If you comment at the talkpage or request an addition someone will discuss with you or add content for you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added one ogf the cites you placed on my talkpage and removed the citation required template, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks to you for being so calm and understanding as I know wiki can be a minefield, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Yes, wiki certainly has been a minefield to a first time user such as myself. Thanks so much for taking the time to work on the article and bring it up to par. I noticed the article has been Relisted. Hopefully a favorable consensus will be reached and the article will be approved. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, a re-listing, I didn't notice... ongoing then. If you don't realize, you are allowed to comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know I can comment there. To tell you the truth, I'm hesitant to write anything. I was rather taken aback at some of the negative comments which were originally posted on the article. I'm really just trying to make as many people as possible aware of Kern because I continue to receive periodic emails from people who have been conned by him. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feelings about that and if you don't want to say anything fair enough, its up to you but as the creator of the article you are able to comment Keep and add your weight to the support for the article. Wiki can be a cold place sometimes as regular users get a bit battle weary , so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as another note, if you like you are also allowed to remove the warning templates that you received here. Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional information about commenting. Do you think it would be acceptable if I commented something to the effect: "It's important to inform people about this convicted felon."

And I certainly understand that the regular users get a bit battle weary. I'm sure you do see it all, so to speak.

I'll try and figure out how to remove the warning templates. Do you mean remove warning templates from this page or on the actual article page? If possible, can you please send me a link to a page that would instruct me on how to remove the warning templates?

Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit this talk page to write a comment, using the "Edit" tab at the top of the page, you will see all the headings, including one that will say ==September 2010==. If you delete the information beneath that until the next heading and save it, that will remove it once you save the page. Include an edit summary to say what you've done. Bigger digger (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bigger digger! I better hold off until I really know what I'm doing. Maybe when I read through your instructions again it will make more sense. I thought I was fairly computer literate until I attempted to post an article on wiki! And thank you so much for your positive comments regarding the article. I greatly appreciate it.

I think I'll also refrain from commenting on the Relist page of the article. I don't want to further antagonize anyone. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Off2riorob came to the rescue anyway. You'll get used to the format of wikipedia and editing it in time. I don't think anyone is antagonised by your page at the moment, we just have a lot of concern about articles about living people - we have to be shown to be even-handed and not slander anyone, so the wheels can turn quite quickly when something doesn't seem correct. That's all fixed now - anyone googling his name will still find information about his nefarious ways. You might find the following helpful if you intend to stick around Bigger digger (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Elizabeth Grzeszczyk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bigger digger (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the pages Bigger Digger(your name reminds me of the Big Dig in Boston). They'll definitely be helpful. I'm grateful to you, Off2toriorob and Chzzz for all the work you've all done on the article. I certainly understand that wiki is cautious when it comes to living people. It's a bit furtrating for me though, in that I have so much information on Jonathan Kern that can't be used, i.e. there was an article on Jonathan Kern in News of the World, Sunday Magazine in October 2005.I have a hard copy of the article, but I can't find the article on-line. Anyway,between the three of you, you've referenced seven credible articles. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion request

Can one of you please edit the article to include that there is mention of Jonathan Kern impersonating Jonathan Palmer in References 2,4,5 and 6? The way the article now reads, the only mention of Kern impersonating Palmer is that a former girlfriend stated that he had used his name to obtain perks and Reference 7 is cited. From the latest Delete comment, I think the administrators are just reading the article and the title of each article references, and do not realize the scope of Kern's cons. Also, if you want to include a citation regarding Kern's parents, Reference 2 states that Cyril Kern is Jonathan Kern's father and Reference 6 states that Doreen Kern is his mother. Thank you! Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you write something small that I can look at and add, it should be written in an uninvolved way and not dramatizing the claims in any way, ok? Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to. To start, I've copied and pasted below the actual text from the articles so you can read for yourself what has been written. I'll put it in quotes. Then below this, I'll summarize it and you can see if that's suitable.

Jonathan is alleged to have impersonated members of the Rolling Stones and Jonathan Palmer, a BBC motor racing commentator. Chief among these was his impersonation of the former Formula One racing driver, Jonathan Palmer. Kern enjoys the good life and, in the guise of Palmer, he lived the jet-set existence to which he aspires ¬ a world of Monte Carlo, five-star hotels, fast cars and high-class hookers, all charged to the unfortunate Palmer, or to one of the fraudulent credit cards Kern took out in Palmer's name. Some of the cards were in the name Jonathan Kern Palmer - he'd been passing himself off as Jonathan Palmer, the racing driver He has also purchased entire wardrobes of clothes, jewellery, watches, briefcases and numerous other accessories from exclusive designer stores and stayed in some of the world's most expensive hotels running up huge bills - sometimes posing as Rolling Stones guitarist Mick Taylor, but more often than not in the name of Jonathan Palmer, the former Grand Prix racing driver. Kern insists his impersonations "started out as a lads' prank but got out of hand when people actually believed me". But it was certainly no joke for the real Jonathan Palmer, now a racing commentator with his own business driving circuit. Lisa Davis, Palmer's personal assistant, said: "We've had Kern claiming to be Jonathan Palmer all over the world - borrowing cars, and we have had numerous invoices for clothes, jewellery and outstanding hotel bills all in Palmer's name."

Here's my summary(or at least something for you to work on): Jonathan Kern has impersonated Jonathan Palmer, the former Formula One Grand Prix race car driver and former BBC motor racing commentator all over the world. Kern has taken out credit cards, borrowed cars, purchased clothes and jewelry, and rung up hotel bills all in Palmer's name. How's that?Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's okay, I'd like to include some of Kern's additional impersonations which will give readers a more comprehensive listing of his cons. These were all noted in the articles referenced on the current Jonathan Kern page. I've copied and pasted the additional text from the referenced articles in one collective set of quotes below. Then I've summarized the additional impersonations and included his impersonation of Jonathan Palmer. So you can just use what I've summarized at the bottom of this comment and skip what I've written in the above comment. I hope this isn't confusing.

"Jonathan is alleged to have impersonated members of the Rolling Stones and Jonathan Palmer, a BBC motor racing commentator. He also posed as a producer of the 1980s pop group A-ha and fooled a Park Lane garage into lending him a £44,000 BMW. In 1999 he was jailed for three years for tricking Lotus into giving him a sports car that he used for a two-month tour of the Costa del Sol and the French Riviera. Since his first offence of impersonating a policeman at the age of 18, Kern has dishonestly obtained a veritable fleet of fast cars over the years, starting with a £44,000 BMW that he "borrowed" from a Park Lane showroom after posing as a music producer ("I was young. I returned it three weeks later - it was just a prank").

And here's my summary: Jonathan Kern has been labeled both a legendary con man(Reference 4) and a professional con man(Reference 6). He first impersonated a policeman at age 18(Reference 6) and has gone on to impersonate a journalist, rock stars including members of the Rolling Stones, and music producers. (References 2 and 6) Kern's most notable impersonation was of Jonathan Palmer, the former Formula One Grand Prix race car driver and former BBC motor racing commentator. Kern had taken out credit cards, borrowed cars, purchased clothing and jewelry, and rung up hotel bills all in Palmer's name.(References 2,4,5,6). How's that? Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen EG's request but not her efforts, I tweaked the article. There's still more that could go in, I haven't added anything about his other impersonations or the magazine stuff from the Independent. I'm not really up on WP:BLP stuff but worry that adding much more becomes WP:UNDUE, but then he is notable for all his cons... Also, Elizabeth, I don't think you need to worry about this being deleted, consensus at the AfD might not be in favour of an outright keep, but there's almost certainly not the strength for a deletion. I'll leave any extra edits to Off2riorob, he should know what he's doing! Bigger digger (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks to Bigger digger for that addition, small though it may be it is a good addition as regards all policy, I am personally cautious about much expansion and I agree with Bigger that the article may well be kept as one neutral (me) and five keeps and three deletes is a small consensus not to delete, close as no consensus, although the closing admin still imo could delete as one event, but lets see, we will know soon enough. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Bigger digger for the addition to the article, I think it's excellent and better than what I had suggested. Thanks Off2riorob for your guidance. I will trust your judgement as to hold off on additional expansion. I hope you are both right and the article will be kept. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Jonathan Kern

Hello, Elizabeth Grzeszczyk, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Kern whether the article Jonathan Kern should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Jonathan Kern, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! —Ryulong (竜龙) 06:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Re. your comment on my Talk page:

"I believe the basic thrust of both of your comments is that how could I possibly dispute that Jonathan Kern's business, ShellShock Designs is successful, correct?"

No, I think you've misread me there. My comment was that "I think it's appropriate to mention Kern's involvement in Shellshock (with "successful" if that can be cited)" - the implication there was that the word "successful" should be used ONLY if somebody could produce a cite to support it.

"Even if you didn't believe all that was written, you were taken in by it, and assumed that at least some of it was true."

Again, I think you've misread me. The only things I've taken to be true are that Shellshock exists and that Kern is associated with it - I don't think either of those facts are in dispute? Beyond that, I don't think I made any statement as to whether I believe the rest of the section to be true - what I said on that matter was that that even if it was true, it wouldn't belong on Wikipedia, because it was basically advertising copy. I'd have been happy to see the entire section pruned down to something factual, along the lines of "As of XXXX, Kern was associated with interior design company Shellshock Designs".

I don't know much about Kern beyond what you've posted here and elsewhere, but if you look at the long and messy history of Peter Foster you'll see that I am more than a little sceptical about convicted con-men who claim to be 'putting their youthful mistakes behind them'.

Regards - --GenericBob (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your reply, Generic Bob. I apologize, I did misread your original comments and agree with what you've written above. I should not have lumped your comment in with the comment from "Youreallycan". I was frustrated that "Youreallycan" has gone offline and I can't dispute his comments. As you suggested above, I would also have been happy to see the Career section pruned down to "As of XXXX, Kern was associated with interior design company Shellshock Designs". I think it's a shame that the page was deleted when it served as a valuable reference for those seeking further information on Jonathan Kern and ShellShock Designs.

With kind regards, Elizabeth Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's easy to get mixed up when there are several people chiming in with slightly different viewpoints.

I think deletion was probably inevitable under WP's sourcing/BLP/notability policies, but I also think it's very unfortunate that the deletion process was initiated as a response to your post on the BLP noticeboard. The section on Shellshock was inappropriate, and given the potential for CoI problems due to your personal involvement with Kern, I think you did exactly the right thing by asking uninvolved editors to look at the section rather than deleting it unilaterally. I am not criticising the editor who nominated the article for deletion - they were within their rights to do so - but I can imagine how frustrating it would be to see that happen as an unintended consequence of your attempt to improve the article.

One thing to consider: Wikipedia can be extremely attractive to unscrupulous people looking for a place to do their PR work. It's free, it's highly visible, it has more credibility than an obvious advertising page, and a dishonest and unscrupulous editor has a big advantage over honest people. I spent years dealing with one particularly deceptive editor who had no qualms about falsifying dozens of sources, creating sockpuppets, and on one occasion impersonating a respected journalist in an attempt to turn the Peter Foster article into a pro-Foster PR piece. It probably only took this person a few minutes each time to add the bogus material; I and other editors had to spend many hours debunking it and getting his sockpuppets blocked. (Fortunately, he's been quiet lately - I suspect the real-life person operating those accounts may have run into some real-life problems that are a higher priority than sabotaging Wikipedia.)

So deletion is not all bad. It means people can't find useful info about this person on Wikipedia, but it also reduces the risk that somebody would use it to add false or misleading info, and possibly saves you from spending a LOT of time removing that sort info. You don't want to get into edit wars with bad-faith editors if you can avoid it; they start with a huge advantage. --GenericBob (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your reply, Generic Bob. Yes it was quite frustrating to have the article deleted after I tried to do the right thing. However, as you wrote, it probably saves me time and aggrevation in the long run.

I lost this battle but I have won others. A year ago Jonathan Kern hired a solicitor in London, England and had an injunction served against me for posting untrue and defamatory statements about him on the internet. I filed a petition against Kern to have the Injunction discharged as everything I have posted is true. This past April I attended the court hearing in London via telephone and High Court Judge Sir Michael Tugendhat not only discharged the Injunction against me but stated that Kern's solicitors had illegally served me notice of the Injunction outside the court's jurisdiction.

The Peter Foster article was quite interesting. Jonathan Kern is small change compared to Foster. However, there are certainly similarities between the two of them, including their statements that they had changed and that an injustice had been served against them.

There are enough other venues available that should someone choose to do an on-line search about Kern and/or ShellShock Designs they will find a plethora of information.

Thanks again, Elizabeth Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]