![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. This will make the discussion more transparent. Dougweller ( talk) 11:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on this edit, I think you need to read WP:MEAT and be aware of it. History2007 ( talk) 17:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
==meat! == History2007, I think you are going too far and making insinuations intended to deliberately obfuscate the discussions at hand. You know what? I think I'll just go ahead and write to Wikipedia , including how this all started years ago and let's see if they see the same pattern over time. Just 2 days ago, quite a lot of my contributions were deleted- where there was obviously no COI. SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced material to Wikipedia as you did in this edit, where you also removed sourced content which had WP:RS sources. The continued deletion of sourced content with WP:RS sources and the addition of unsourced original research and self-published items reduced encyclopedic quality and may result in a a block on your account. History2007 ( talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that, History2007. I did indeed check your links and I am indeed well within the Wikipedia guidelines. I am not finished with the article revisions yet...so please be patient. In a few days the article will be as polished and well done as the article abut the Talpiot Tomb. I am gathering additional photos documentary films, and references.It should be the goal of every Wiki editor to see all pages done well.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
Information- Definition of source
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
I am confident about being well within these guidelines. By the way, the link to the old TOJ site is not valid. The site crashed months ago and has not been rebuilt. When it is, I am sure someone will post a link to the new site SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
In this edit you again added items such as youtube which are not WP:RS, and some more less than WP:RS sources. I will not revert you not to start an edit war, but do advise you to self-revert. History2007 ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You have not reached WP:3RR at the moment, but in this edit you are beginning to approach that line. Please avoid reverting other editors, read the WP:3RR page and note that it is a "bright line rule" so if you cross it your access will be blocked, and excuses will not be accepted. History2007 ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on the comment above, I took a quick look around, given that I had only noticed this user a few days ago after an edit to add her new website to a page and the WP:FTN post about it. Now I think it was an absolute waste of time on my part to tell her to go and read WP:RS:
In fact it seems that she was editing as user:NewYork10021 in 2008, as user:PaulB noticed.
And it gets worse in that:
So multiple users have been telling her to follow policy until they have turned blue in the face and got tired of telling her that. Now, I have to tell her to go and read WP:RS again after she quoted Jimmy Wales on sourcing back in 2008 and still does not source properly? (I certainly have sourced properly. I can point to many similar examples on Wiki. Suzanne Olsson)
If she did not listen in 2008, and then in 2013, is she ever going to listen and follow policy? I think this user will be blocked out sooner or later, and in my opinion the time is now. History2007 ( talk) 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC) History2007.
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Roza Bal, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The BBC YouTube link is clearly copyvio. And as we assume copyright, the Indian documentary has been removed until it can be shown to be definitely copyright free or an official site used as a link. Dougweller ( talk) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: Doug and History 2007- I would like to point your attention to this article about the changing attitude toward self published books- and the New York Times review of such books. New York Times Acceptance of Self- Published Books Drawing distinctions purely on the way that a book has been published now says more about the person making the comparison than the books they are comparing. The best of self-publishing can compete on equal terms with the best of traditional publishing I will have to check with Yashendra, the film producer in India. I know there was some conflict, but I thought it was resolved. I am also unaware of copyright conflict with the BC- There are so many links on the Internet to these films, Thank You for checking. We need to find the legitimate links!. SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
World attitudes may one day change Wikipedia policy. When policy changes, then those issues can be discussed. But Wikipedia policy has not changed. When it does that is a separate matter, but even discussing it would be shades of WP:CRYSTAL in some sense. History2007 ( talk) 16:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I came to your talk page, but see it has already been said. History2007 and Dougweller are just making mainstream edits. If you want to add something useful to the article please do so from mainstream print sources. It could for example do with one glaring obvious hole filled. Who do the local Sunnis say Yuz Asuf is? What are their sources for believing it to be a muslim holy man? In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. This will make the discussion more transparent. Dougweller ( talk) 11:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on this edit, I think you need to read WP:MEAT and be aware of it. History2007 ( talk) 17:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
==meat! == History2007, I think you are going too far and making insinuations intended to deliberately obfuscate the discussions at hand. You know what? I think I'll just go ahead and write to Wikipedia , including how this all started years ago and let's see if they see the same pattern over time. Just 2 days ago, quite a lot of my contributions were deleted- where there was obviously no COI. SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced material to Wikipedia as you did in this edit, where you also removed sourced content which had WP:RS sources. The continued deletion of sourced content with WP:RS sources and the addition of unsourced original research and self-published items reduced encyclopedic quality and may result in a a block on your account. History2007 ( talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that, History2007. I did indeed check your links and I am indeed well within the Wikipedia guidelines. I am not finished with the article revisions yet...so please be patient. In a few days the article will be as polished and well done as the article abut the Talpiot Tomb. I am gathering additional photos documentary films, and references.It should be the goal of every Wiki editor to see all pages done well.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
Information- Definition of source
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
I am confident about being well within these guidelines. By the way, the link to the old TOJ site is not valid. The site crashed months ago and has not been rebuilt. When it is, I am sure someone will post a link to the new site SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
In this edit you again added items such as youtube which are not WP:RS, and some more less than WP:RS sources. I will not revert you not to start an edit war, but do advise you to self-revert. History2007 ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You have not reached WP:3RR at the moment, but in this edit you are beginning to approach that line. Please avoid reverting other editors, read the WP:3RR page and note that it is a "bright line rule" so if you cross it your access will be blocked, and excuses will not be accepted. History2007 ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on the comment above, I took a quick look around, given that I had only noticed this user a few days ago after an edit to add her new website to a page and the WP:FTN post about it. Now I think it was an absolute waste of time on my part to tell her to go and read WP:RS:
In fact it seems that she was editing as user:NewYork10021 in 2008, as user:PaulB noticed.
And it gets worse in that:
So multiple users have been telling her to follow policy until they have turned blue in the face and got tired of telling her that. Now, I have to tell her to go and read WP:RS again after she quoted Jimmy Wales on sourcing back in 2008 and still does not source properly? (I certainly have sourced properly. I can point to many similar examples on Wiki. Suzanne Olsson)
If she did not listen in 2008, and then in 2013, is she ever going to listen and follow policy? I think this user will be blocked out sooner or later, and in my opinion the time is now. History2007 ( talk) 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC) History2007.
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Roza Bal, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The BBC YouTube link is clearly copyvio. And as we assume copyright, the Indian documentary has been removed until it can be shown to be definitely copyright free or an official site used as a link. Dougweller ( talk) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: Doug and History 2007- I would like to point your attention to this article about the changing attitude toward self published books- and the New York Times review of such books. New York Times Acceptance of Self- Published Books Drawing distinctions purely on the way that a book has been published now says more about the person making the comparison than the books they are comparing. The best of self-publishing can compete on equal terms with the best of traditional publishing I will have to check with Yashendra, the film producer in India. I know there was some conflict, but I thought it was resolved. I am also unaware of copyright conflict with the BC- There are so many links on the Internet to these films, Thank You for checking. We need to find the legitimate links!. SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson SuzanneOlsson ( talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
World attitudes may one day change Wikipedia policy. When policy changes, then those issues can be discussed. But Wikipedia policy has not changed. When it does that is a separate matter, but even discussing it would be shades of WP:CRYSTAL in some sense. History2007 ( talk) 16:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I came to your talk page, but see it has already been said. History2007 and Dougweller are just making mainstream edits. If you want to add something useful to the article please do so from mainstream print sources. It could for example do with one glaring obvious hole filled. Who do the local Sunnis say Yuz Asuf is? What are their sources for believing it to be a muslim holy man? In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)