User talk:Jbdelaporte

Immigration to Australia and 3O

I have removed your request from 3O as there is no talk page dispute to attend to (and I wanted to contact you directly about the issue that you are experiencing). 3O is strictly for bi-barty disputes that have had prior talk page discussion and could not reach a resolution. It is quite apparent from the history that you and one other editor are in an edit war with no less than four SPAs, all of which are likely to be sockpuppets. I notice that your account is an SPA as well, which may possibly count against you to some degree if this dispute goes further. I think you should seek other avenues, such as ANI. By the way; your talk page history shows that you have removed comments; while WP:TALK permits such edits on your own talk page, most editors dislike this behaviour and it will colour their opinion of you. Basically, it is bad practice. Adrian M. H. 11:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are but I think it would be helpful if you used less jargon in your comments. I have no idea what you mean by SPA, so for the time being I will treat it as NMP (not my problem). If I find a translation I will see what I can do about it.

I have been making an attempt to improve the page Immigration to Australia (and another, Migration Agents Registration Authority, which I have left off for a while to sort this out). I am new to this but I am learning. I believe my edits to be entirely accurate and within Wikipedia policy, but if someone else thinks they are not I am prepared to discuss it. Instead, the edits are simply undone within minutes and replaced with a scarecely grammatical single paragraph. If you check the history, you will see that the only legible comments so far are "Australian content only" and "authored by a lawyer". I can't see how either of these amounts to valid criticisms. I see that the page has now been protected, but with my edits removed. I am trying to work out how to get that changed. Any constructive comments in plain English (or even French Italian Spanish Portuguese Esperanto Latin, rather than Wikipedese) would be appreciated.

Finally, I don't see why I shouldn't remove comments from my talk page when they use the obviously fraudulent technique of sticking an official looking "information" sign and "welcome" greeting as if they were from some authority, when they are just from the same people who object to my edits for reasons fo their own. jbdelaporte 23:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not valid criticisms at all, but if the editors (or editor?) behind the four Single Purpose Accounts (a term that is common on WP, so please forgive my omission of a link) will not communicate when invited, then you have no choice but to seek other avenues. Start at dispute resolution and consider ANI. The 3O process cannot help when there has been no discussion and it cannot help when there are multiple accounts involved. It states as much at 3O. Normally, multiple accounts simply correspond to multiple editors, but I have been around long enough to spot a likely sockpuppet when one rears its ugly head; four SPAs (some of which have what could be taken as antagonistic names) involved in the same edit war is very suspicious. By the way; you will have to get used to jargon if you want to learn how to use WP, because it's unavoidable. I have removed your unnecessarily rude heading. Adrian M. H. 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your talk page, these warnings are official templates that any editor can issue when they have a valid reason to do so. Such warnings should be kept for clarity. You need to assume good faith on the part of the editor who left them. We have avenues for dealing with any genuine grievances if those templates are an issue. Adrian M. H. 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to "assume good faith" unless the presumption is clearly rebutted, as it has been here. As for my heading, perhaps you could reflect on the fact that new editors like myself feel fairly bewildered by the whole thing and could benefit from a bit more explanation of things. I think I have correctly filed a request for editing of the protected page and I would be grateful if you could give some guidance as to how to proceed from here. jbdelaporte 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Migrantlaw

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Migrantlaw requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]