User talk:Jdemarcos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reported your COI

Hello, Jdemarcos. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you..

COI Resolved --Jdemarcos (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

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.

Note you have been reported, after your long long long, biased behaviour and explicit proofs of your COI status, and your bad faith for editing the article, referring your friends and your institution.

Hi, my editing activity is currently under discussion at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I would like to know if this noticeboard is monitored by neutral Administrators and if these Administrators or mediators would participate and/or resolve on the discussion. Thanks. --Jdemarcos (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be, but right now there doesn't seem to be any admins actively monitoring the noticeboard. If you feel like the current argument is getting out of hand (seems so to me), it might be best if you took this to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for more eyes on the issue. Be aware of WP:BOOMERANG though. Other than that, sorry, but we can not help with content disputes.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly tip

While you didn't do anything wrong (that I could see) in creating the archive of Talk:Michael Servetus, another option would be to set the page up for automatic archival (see Wikipedia:Archive#Automated archival. This prevents the possibility of another user accusing you of doing anything to the text (or other nasty things) before it is archived. Again, I believe you did everything acceptably and above-the-board, but given that there are one or more editors who accused you of COI in the past (and may look for things to complain about in the future), I wanted to make sure you knew about all your options. Just something I noticed. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bera, Count of Barcelona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ampurias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Long Lasting COI

Hello, Jdemarcos. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

--Alice Alaster (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the wall of text pasted above is not a legitimate (morally or otherwise) notice of COI, no? It seems like you're being unfairly attacked here, Jdemarcos... Azx2 06:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignorance of Primary sources, and economical benefits, WP:NOPR WP:NOPAY as a member of the Michael servetus instite, for your books

There is a new COI , you have the chance to prove you are saying the truth, or show you do not have any primary source on this. We will then deal with the economical benefits you were granted by the MSI. Have a nice day too. It is in the Conflict of interest notice board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Alaster (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Alice Alaster, I really think you're out of line and attacking - or at least treating unfairly and certainly unsympathetically - Jdemarcos. Give them a break, please. Azx2 06:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New complaint at the COI noticeboard

Hello Jdemarcos. Please see WP:COIN#One editor at Michael Servetus may be connected to the institute of the same name. You are invited to respond there. 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Jdemarcos, they're really putting you through the wringer, eh? Sometimes wikipedia is too much! Good luck! Azx2 06:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ARCHIVED. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hebrew University has been informed

Please note me and some more people have contacted the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on how you try to edit assurances on Michael's Hebrew skills just noting Pagnini's Bible, and not the studies carried out on Christianismi Restitutio, or the Manuscript of Paris, or his access to Hebrew texts. Their studies will be referred in few weeks. Same than a reply to the study on the Pagnini Bible, which is a partial study, not carried out by native Hebrew experts, as the ones I just contacted. This will be also shared with most of Jewish Societies in Spain, for telling them how your institute tries to diminish Michael Servetus's hebraism. You do not know Hebrew nor you know what you talk of, but we will remind you, do you know we hold some peple in Trotta ed. in Spain too? They were very interested on this behavior of yours. להתראות --Noah Bernstein (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bera de Razes;

I will try to follow up more promptly with citations. There are a lot of family trees that are consistent with the notion that Bera, count of Razes, was of Visigothic descent, rather than Frankish. A further source of confusion is that many people doing genealogy work do not recognize that Razes was a county in the Carolingian Marca Hispanica, south of Carcassonne, around Limoux and Quillan. They confuse it with the town Razes in the Haute-Vienne of Limousin north of Limoges. When you realize the geographic location of these people and of the people they are said to be descended from and related to in many family trees, it is clear to me that they were Visigothic. I know that family trees are not as good documentation as are other contemporary documents, and that they sometimes contain some incredibly spurious stuff, but I find them good enough as clues. For instance when I followed Bera of Razes family tree back about four generations someone linked the family to a son of one of the early Merovingian kings that much more well documented history says died as a child. It is spurious on its face as there was no way a Frankish prince living in northern Flanders about 500 a.d. is going to get practically to the Mediterranean to marry without notice and documentation.20:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)~DocSpenser — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocSpenser (talk • contribs)