User talk:DamianPythias999
Welcome!
[edit]
|
November 2012
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jazmin Grace Grimaldi has been reverted.
Your edit here to Jazmin Grace Grimaldi was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u607/TheVisualThinker/PACWJGG/HelloVol1250.jpg) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
February 2019
[edit]
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Conflict of interest?
[edit]
Hello, DamianPythias999. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- 10 September 2011 - first edit from this account4 September 201617 October 201616 February 201916 February 20195 February 202413 February 2024 "changes appears malicious" --Hipal (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, no clue about any of this as this response does not apply. As a Professor of History at Univ of California, historical facts are just that. The removed reference was cited by Associated Press. The explanations are "who cares" and "trivia." Neither qualifies as a reason to alter a factual reference. However, here we have a perfect example of the removal and explanation which supports exactly why Academics advise students to not cite Wikipedia. AbbyLawrence (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having an extremely difficult time believing you, that you are a professor focusing on facts. Not that it matters. What you've done in light of Wikipedia's policies is what matters. The diffs above strongly suggest that you're here to promote a security agency. Those diffs are the basis for my concerns with your editing. --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear by your comment, "...focusing on facts" that you, in fact, have no interest in factual information because we are taking about a fact reported by a news organization. The second comment you make, "...strongly suggest that you're here to promote a security agency..." which I'm guessing is your attempt at justifying your actions (not mine). I wondered if you researched this organization you claim I am "promoting." I never had an interest to do so and the idea never crossed my mind until now. This morning for the first time I looked at the website of this organization and Googled to learn a little about them and come to realize your statement is even more ridiculous than I first thought. It's very clear this organization is involved with far more important (and I do not use this word disparagingly) individuals than a young lady from Riverside California and certainly would not need anyone, especially me, to "promote" them. I took the time this morning to look into this because I've attended a few conferences where citing Wikipedia was the subject of debate. And it appears this is part of the reason Wikipedia is shunned by Academics; arbitrary self-policing by editors ruling based on unsupported self-motivating assumptions. That's what this is, isn't it? Anyone, which should include you, who took the time to Google this organization after hearing your concerns would immediately come to a few very obvious conclusions: based on who they represent this young lady adds no value to their organization, there is no mention of their organization on the Wikipedia pages of any other clients (the handful I found mentioned via Google) and the most glaring is they seem to focus on the protection and privacy of their clients; therefore, the idea of "promoting" would contradict everything I read about them in the five minutes I allowed myself to do this. The idea they would go to all this trouble to "promote" their organization on her page and no one else's (that I found, but to me it's irrelevant) is incomprehensible. However, now that I'm aware this organization appears to focus on the protection and privacy of their clients, it would probably raise concerns with them to have such personal information on this young lady's page. So despite your epic failure to support your position for removing a fact reported by a legitimate news organization simply based on a "hunch" for which you must otherwise have some personal reason(s), it appears you indirectly did the right thing by omitting it and maintaining her privacy. AbbyLawrence (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you cannot focus on the facts of what you've actually done, we'll make no progress here. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused, I thought this issue was resolved by my last response. Clearly, it is you who fails to focus enough to comprehend the common sense laid out in my previous response. I was very concise, yet you still wish to engage despite continuing to fail to provide any legitimate argument supporting your original position; none. As an example, after realizing "who cares" is not a reason to remove any item from any page, you altered your defense to "promoting," and with that reason dismantled you deflect by claiming I apparently cannot "focus." This happens to be your weakest defense, which I might point out is traditionally the pattern of those who are fundamentally wrong from the start; their excuses (yes, that what they are) become weaker. Obviously, I'm not the one who needs to focus since your unsupported actions caused this exchange. I've done nothing but request clarification of your decision, then challenged your irrational reasoning. Frankly, this entire exercise is quite simple. The fact you continue to respond as you do completely legitimizes my assessment of what's going on here. It's your overzealous policing supported by illogical reasoning as detailed in my last response that should have ended our exercise, but it does appear you might be one of those who struggles with not having the last word as if having the last word grants you some form of immunity. On the other hand, I'm sure there are many legitimate reasons within Wiki guidelines for any removal, you simply failed to use one, instead opting for your own personal reasons; which invited clarification and challenge. The beauty in all this I discovered is that it's likely best that the item was removed (I did make this clear in my previous response, which of course should have ended this debate) as I certainly wouldn't want to publicize something not wanted publicized. In addition, since citing from Wikipedia is an ongoing debatable topic among Academics, I have printed everything related to this discussion and the pages before and after. Since "HiPal" is a pseudonym, there's no expectation of privacy, so I am going to take this opportunity to present this debate to the Regents with the hope our exercise can be used as the prefect example as to why (editors can arbitrarily decide what's relevant, whether factual or not) citing Wikipedia should be banned across the board unless supported by a additional citations. To be clear, this is no longer about reconsidering your decision but everything about your reasoning -- this is the part you fail to focus on and realize. Lastly, the next time I get solicited to donate to Wikipedia (seems like weekly), I will still donate as I always do but I will also find a way to forward these exchanges to those requesting the donation for no other reason than maybe someone will change the requirements of those who wish to volunteer to be a Wiki Editor. AbbyLawrence (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you cannot focus on the facts of what you've actually done, we'll make no progress here. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear by your comment, "...focusing on facts" that you, in fact, have no interest in factual information because we are taking about a fact reported by a news organization. The second comment you make, "...strongly suggest that you're here to promote a security agency..." which I'm guessing is your attempt at justifying your actions (not mine). I wondered if you researched this organization you claim I am "promoting." I never had an interest to do so and the idea never crossed my mind until now. This morning for the first time I looked at the website of this organization and Googled to learn a little about them and come to realize your statement is even more ridiculous than I first thought. It's very clear this organization is involved with far more important (and I do not use this word disparagingly) individuals than a young lady from Riverside California and certainly would not need anyone, especially me, to "promote" them. I took the time this morning to look into this because I've attended a few conferences where citing Wikipedia was the subject of debate. And it appears this is part of the reason Wikipedia is shunned by Academics; arbitrary self-policing by editors ruling based on unsupported self-motivating assumptions. That's what this is, isn't it? Anyone, which should include you, who took the time to Google this organization after hearing your concerns would immediately come to a few very obvious conclusions: based on who they represent this young lady adds no value to their organization, there is no mention of their organization on the Wikipedia pages of any other clients (the handful I found mentioned via Google) and the most glaring is they seem to focus on the protection and privacy of their clients; therefore, the idea of "promoting" would contradict everything I read about them in the five minutes I allowed myself to do this. The idea they would go to all this trouble to "promote" their organization on her page and no one else's (that I found, but to me it's irrelevant) is incomprehensible. However, now that I'm aware this organization appears to focus on the protection and privacy of their clients, it would probably raise concerns with them to have such personal information on this young lady's page. So despite your epic failure to support your position for removing a fact reported by a legitimate news organization simply based on a "hunch" for which you must otherwise have some personal reason(s), it appears you indirectly did the right thing by omitting it and maintaining her privacy. AbbyLawrence (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having an extremely difficult time believing you, that you are a professor focusing on facts. Not that it matters. What you've done in light of Wikipedia's policies is what matters. The diffs above strongly suggest that you're here to promote a security agency. Those diffs are the basis for my concerns with your editing. --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, no clue about any of this as this response does not apply. As a Professor of History at Univ of California, historical facts are just that. The removed reference was cited by Associated Press. The explanations are "who cares" and "trivia." Neither qualifies as a reason to alter a factual reference. However, here we have a perfect example of the removal and explanation which supports exactly why Academics advise students to not cite Wikipedia. AbbyLawrence (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
There's no debate here. Please be civil, focus on content and policy, and take responsibility for your own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)