User talk:Byron87

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A registered user from a foreign section of Wikipedia uses a fake account to vandalize one of the pages I am trying to maintain. In addition, he uses different usernames in order to orient the opinion and publish unsourced allegations on the Talk page. If anyone could help me with this, that would be great. Thanks

What is the article and account name? Spitfire19 ^T/_C 03:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Jamin

Account name: Arkeology

I think this is the same person : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:El_Comandante/Pr%C3%A9sentation

I also have a doubt about this user: FreeRangeFrog

Thanks,

Really appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron87 (talk • contribs)

I'm not Arkeology, so your allegations are defamatory. To prove it, I've asked the CheckUser Team to confirm what I say. El Comandante (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the users continue to repeatedly mess with your pages, you can try to report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in the case of repeated vandalism, or Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents in the case of anything else outside of vandalism. Hoppeduppeanut (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate your guidance. This is very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron87 (talk • contribs)

Not a problem! Also, please make sure that you sign any comments you leave on talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end of your comment. This adds your username and a link to your user, user talk and contributions pages to the end of your comment. For example, for me "~~~~" will turn into "Hoppeduppeanut (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)". This is to avoid confusion in case someone else decides to comment on your page as well. Thanks! Hoppeduppeanut (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is good to know but it doesn't work for me. What am I supposed to enter between the two nowiki markups? Thanks for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron87 (talk • contribs)

Hi Byron87. You need to be careful about using the term "vandalism" here. On Wikipedia, it has a very specific meaning, and falsely accusing someone of being a vandal is usually regarded as a personal attack. Arkeology is emphatically not vandalising the page; you and he have a disagreement over content, which is a very different issue. I'm glad to see that you're both discussing the issue on the article's talkpage; that's the correct course of action. If the two of you continue to disagree, you can involve other users by requesting dispute resolution; howevere, you will be wasting your time (and ours!) if you make a report to AIV or ANI. Remember that you do not have any special claim on the article; Arkeology has as much right to edit it as you or anyone else here. And for the record, I've no idea why you'd be suspicious of FreeRangeFrog, but he is not Arkeology (no comment on the French Wikipedia account). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, you may not remove messages that you disagree with from article talkpages, unless they specifically violate the biographies of living persons policy (the one you removed did not). Doing so is considered disruptive, and may result in a block. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any relationship with Thierry Jamin

And if so, what is it? Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's have it, per WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the moment, my only link to Jamin is the fact that I've read his books. As I am passioned about both the Inca civilization and Archaeology, I thought that his work and accomplishments were quite impressive and I did a lot of research about him on the Internet.

Then, I noticed two things: 1. There was no entry for him in Wikipedia (at least in English) 2. Someone is obviously trying to ruin his online reputation by systematically posting oriented comments on any news related to him and by making strong allegations on Wikipedia (see the Talk page on the French version of this article). Jamin confirmed me that someone is clearly trying to anonymously vindicate him and that legal actions were in progress. I am not part of his team, I am not a family member nor one of his students. Do my readings, researches and emails constitute a WP:COI!!?? Thanks. Byron87 (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong WP:DUCK here. You claim you've never even MET Jamin? Then why do you also claim that you took SIX PHOTOGRAPHS of him? This makes no sense at all. I strongly suggest that you take a WP:WALK before you get yourself blocked. Qworty (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I obtained the pictures from Jamin himself. You just need to ask, I'll be glad to answer any of your questions.Byron87 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you got the photos from him and you've been emailing back and forth with him, then you have WP:COI. If that's not what happened, then you've got WP:COPYVIO. Both things can't be true. Which of these is true and which is not true? Qworty (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure I understand. If you ask questions and material by email, does that constitute a WP:COI I am going through it, I don't see this kind of mention. What I was supposed to do with the pictures? Were they supposed to be hosted somewhere else to validated? Byron87 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, you have a WP:COI because you have a relationship with him, even if it's only an email correspondence. You've also stated that you're here to help him defend his public reputation, which is also a WP:COI. The pictures belong to the copyright holders, not to you. Wikipedia cannot post them without the consent of the copyright owners, per WP:COPYVIO. Qworty (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am sorry but the page about WP:COI doesn't mention anything like that. If you intend to do some research to create the best possible content about a topic, you also go to the source, don't you? It seems common sense to me. It doesn't mean that is the only source I checked. That's why I've added a lot, everything was documented as much as possible. For the rest, you are right, I am not the copyright holder of the pictures. However, I would be glad to know how am supposed to do if I want to post a picture on a page. Obviously, the topic of interest is not going to post his own pictures either because I am sure this is forbidden. What are the alternatives? Quite franckly, I was expecting more welcoming answers.Byron87 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:COI: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role." You have an external relationship with Jasmin. Also, Wikipedians do not "go to the source" because that is WP:OR. If you want to post a photo of Jasmin, you need to find one whose photographer is willing to release the copyright for Wikipedia's purposes. Qworty (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, Qworty, as long as we're throwing around WP:ALLCAPS, how about WP:AGF? I disagree that emailing someone for sources constitutes a relationship. WP:OR, sure. WP:NPOV, perhaps. How about your own WP:BITE?→Stani Stani 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Qworty, it appears that your first edit ever to Wikipedia was to remove 37K of text from a Talk page as an archiving maintenance function, which seems a rather advanced step for a new Wikipedian to take, fresh out of the box. So, which Wikipedia editor were you before becoming Qworty? Yes, let's have it, per WP:CLEANSTART. - 2001:558:1400:10:458C:941E:A1A1:58FD (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, I also want to precise that an email inquiry is different than an email correspondence. We are not talking about something going back and forth here. As per WP:COI and as highlighted by the previous Wikipedian, this is not a relationship and so this article should not be flagged with WP:COI. As I explained, and contrary to your assumptions, my goal was not to favor anyone but to get the story straight. In that case, I think it is fair to have a chance to hear both sides of the story, which doesn't mean they have to be used as sources (I understand that). First, I found the negative comments, then compared with Jamin's declarations, and finally tried to find as many sources from reliable third-parties. As I am not as familiar as you are with all the different rules, some of the sources provided were apparently not "neutral" enough as per Wikipedia's standard and I obviously made a mistake with the pictures. However, you have to notice that I've purposely created a paragraph dedicated to the existing polemics and provided sources supporting different viewpoints. I also explained all the process in good faith. Can we move on now?Byron87 (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Byron87. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thierry Jamin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thierry Jamin, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thierry Jamin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]