User talk:Jillsy
Welcome
[edit]Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:
- Policy on neutral point of view
- Guideline on spam
- Guideline on external links
- Guideline on conflict of interest
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and how to develop articles
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Article wizard for creating new articles
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatzchatspy 22:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
So you'll allow all sorts of misinformation to be disseminated on Wikipedia, but I'm not allowed to point people to some good non-fiction books that relate to topics they're researching. I didn't write these books so I'm not trying to advertise them. Even if I was, the books to which I have linked are not published by some big commercial outfit. Furthermore, these books contain much more reliable information than that contained here at Wikipedia. You do realize most schools ban the use of Wikipedia as a credible reference, right? When I come here, I go to the reference and external links section to find potentially credible references. If you're going to eliminate such links and references, then this site is useless to me and countless others. Besides, I have seen plenty of advertising content here so I don't appreciate being singled out for posts that "seem to be advertising." I will be blogging all over about the bias I have just encountered here from Ckatz. You're simply keeping people from gathering useful, reliable information and that is abominable. You actually have an entire article on Facebook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook). How is that not advertising for Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook? Jillsy (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)(edit conflict)I think that you're not understanding something. Wikipedia is a wiki, and so vandalism is common. You can deal with it. Also, articles describe and give information about subjects.Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jillsy, many of your posts involved adding links to a single company; I'd encourage you to read through the external links guideline for a better understanding of the purpose of that section. If you truly feel that the links you've added are worthwhile, they should be used to reference existing material or add new information. The EL sections are not intended as mere directories to content; there is a lot of material out there that is good, but we cannot list it all. I do take issue with your statements above, as you are responding to a legitimate concern with spurious accusations of "bias" and threats to bad-mouth the site. Would it not make more sense to instead attempt to adjust your methodology to fit within the conventions Wikipedia uses? --Ckatzchatspy 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did read the guidelines before I wrote my help request. I don't see where I did anything wrong. Furthermore, I find it interesting that you called my bias accusation "spurious," yet failed to address my question about the huge Facebook article here on Wikipedia. I did a search on your username and found you have angered many Wikipedia users with your overzealous edits and removals. You also seem to have a lot of time to spend here and at related sites despite your claims of being busy in real life. Furthermore, I noticed on your talk page that you rarely answer users' concerns regarding your edits of their contributions. That smells of not only bias, but vindictiveness.
Anyway, I no longer care about this issue. I and many others have known for some time that Wikipedia is really a wasteland. The only difference is that now I realize it's a wasteland because of "contributors" like you. I was trying to contribute some legitimate, reliable information to enhance the research experience. Jillsy (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel you can make a case for the removal of an article on Facebook, go right ahead. It may be more productive, however, to instead chip in and weed out material you feel is overly promotional. With regard to this matter, please keep in mind that people are just trying to help you fit in here. If your automatic response is simply to go on the attack, I think you'll find that will just put people off. Your choice, however. --Ckatzchatspy 00:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I followed your guidelines and added a book under Further Reading instead of under EL. I modeled the section and reference after those found on the Benedict Arnold article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold). Now you removed it with a remark of "Please stop." So now you have proven without a doubt that you are simply being vindictive. I have every right to list a legitimate, relevant book on this site. I did not link to any commercial website. The book has an ISBN and has useful information for anyone wanting to read about Lyon Mountain. In fact, the book may have been used as a reference for some of the info in the Wikipedia Lyon Mountain article. If you truly want to help me, then you're going to have to explain why I cannot list an actual book with an actual ISBN. By the way, I noticed the ISBN page links to Google Products. Again, more advertising even though you claim advertising is not allowed. If Wikipedia is meant to inform, then it should lead people to legitimate sources of information, such as books, and not just cater to big commercial entities such as Google and Facebook. And don't bother answering if you're simply going to downplay my complaints with insults and not address all my concerns and points. Sorry, Ckatz, but I am not impressed or intimidated by you. Instead of doing your job, your using personal feelings to cheat researchers out of useful information. That's not at all professional. Jillsy (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please indicate where I have "insulted" you, tried to "intimidate" you, or any of the other claims you've made. Note that you are the one who has used insulting terms such as "bias", "vindictive", and "cheat". As for the book you are so eager to note here ,why not use it to actually reference material, instead of just adding a simple listing? ::::::That would be far more beneficial, as it would assist readers who want to know if a statement is in fact accurate. --Ckatzchatspy 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I followed your guidelines and added a book under Further Reading instead of under EL. I modeled the section and reference after those found on the Benedict Arnold article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold). Now you removed it with a remark of "Please stop." So now you have proven without a doubt that you are simply being vindictive. I have every right to list a legitimate, relevant book on this site. I did not link to any commercial website. The book has an ISBN and has useful information for anyone wanting to read about Lyon Mountain. In fact, the book may have been used as a reference for some of the info in the Wikipedia Lyon Mountain article. If you truly want to help me, then you're going to have to explain why I cannot list an actual book with an actual ISBN. By the way, I noticed the ISBN page links to Google Products. Again, more advertising even though you claim advertising is not allowed. If Wikipedia is meant to inform, then it should lead people to legitimate sources of information, such as books, and not just cater to big commercial entities such as Google and Facebook. And don't bother answering if you're simply going to downplay my complaints with insults and not address all my concerns and points. Sorry, Ckatz, but I am not impressed or intimidated by you. Instead of doing your job, your using personal feelings to cheat researchers out of useful information. That's not at all professional. Jillsy (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel you can make a case for the removal of an article on Facebook, go right ahead. It may be more productive, however, to instead chip in and weed out material you feel is overly promotional. With regard to this matter, please keep in mind that people are just trying to help you fit in here. If your automatic response is simply to go on the attack, I think you'll find that will just put people off. Your choice, however. --Ckatzchatspy 00:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is it OK for a further reading section to be included in the Benedict Arnold article, but not the Lyon Mountain article? The book I listed is a legitimate reference for the History and Industry sections currently in the Lyon Mountain article. By the way, there are currently no references listed for those sections; the only references listed are census references. I'm sure if I list the book as a reference, though, you'll simply remove it again. Thus far, I've seen no consistency. Something allowed by other users is now not allowed by me. And the terms I used that you claim were insulting were simply observations. You ARE cheating people out of legitimate information. You ARE being biased by allowing other users to list books as further reading and not allowing me to do so. And those activities seem to be quite vindictive from where I sit. Again, your behavior is not at all professional. You have not addressed my concerns and points. Instead, you're just being defensive and condescending. I doubt you know anything about Lyon Mountain, NY. I do; I live near the place and have been to its museum, which carries the book I wanted to list. Anyway, you have proven my suspicion. You are simply not going to allow the listing of this book, or any other relevant book, by me under any circumstances because you don't want to. You're on a power trip and Wikipedia users are the ones paying the price for your immaturity and unprofessional behavior. I hope you're proud of yourself. Jillsy (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop resorting to petty insults; I'm certainly not doing anything of the sort with you, and frankly, from my perspective, you've been quite unreasonable. (Please keep in mind that I'm getting paid exactly what you are for helping out on this site, if not less, and dealing with arrogant people isn't really what compels me to put in the time.) If you had any idea of how many thousands (if not millions) of links, books, articles, and so on have been posted as "vital resources", you'd understand why the policies in place to govern them exist. Wikipedia even has a guideline to address the tired "why is it in that article and not in mine" argument; just because you find something elsewhere doesn't mean it is warranted, nor does it imply any sort of "bias". All one can accurately glean from those occurrences is that this is a huge project with nowhere near the people needed to ensure the entire place is in sync with its own guidelines and policies. As for your other claims, I have been quite clear in suggesting that you consider using the book as a reference. Find actual sections of text that support material that is currently unreferenced, instead of simply listing the book. If you need assistance in formatting references, I'd be happy to help, but we need to keep this discussion civil. --Ckatzchatspy 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I have done as you asked: I added some info to the Industry section from the book and referenced it. It seems to be done correctly based on what I have seen in other articles. If you would like me to link to the Wikipedia articles on the George Washington Bridge, etc., mentioned in my addition, I can do that as well. I chose to add this particular info to demonstrate the importance of Lyon Mountain in the iron ore industry. I was very excited to read about it in the book and think others will be as well. Furthermore, I don't think the info is well known so users reading the article will likely be pleasantly surprised to read about it. Jillsy (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- See, that is great - instead of yet another external link, you have added some interesting facts to the article that will help readers to better picture the topic. Frankly, if you're reading something that fits Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and something makes you feel excited, there's a good chance that it could help flesh out the article. The reality is that the vast majority of readers will never have the time or the opportunity to read material listed in a book section. When you add interesting facts, as you've now done, it brings the content to the reader and also brings the topic alive. (For example, I've never heard of Lyon Mountain before, but I have used all of those bridges.) FYI, you might note that I've tweaked the reference a bit. I've moved it to the first sentence it references, and then I've given it a name. That allows you to re-use the reference later without having to re-enter the entire thing, which saves space both in the article (less clutter) and in the references section (all uses get grouped together, instead of as separate entries.) Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 06:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I have done as you asked: I added some info to the Industry section from the book and referenced it. It seems to be done correctly based on what I have seen in other articles. If you would like me to link to the Wikipedia articles on the George Washington Bridge, etc., mentioned in my addition, I can do that as well. I chose to add this particular info to demonstrate the importance of Lyon Mountain in the iron ore industry. I was very excited to read about it in the book and think others will be as well. Furthermore, I don't think the info is well known so users reading the article will likely be pleasantly surprised to read about it. Jillsy (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop resorting to petty insults; I'm certainly not doing anything of the sort with you, and frankly, from my perspective, you've been quite unreasonable. (Please keep in mind that I'm getting paid exactly what you are for helping out on this site, if not less, and dealing with arrogant people isn't really what compels me to put in the time.) If you had any idea of how many thousands (if not millions) of links, books, articles, and so on have been posted as "vital resources", you'd understand why the policies in place to govern them exist. Wikipedia even has a guideline to address the tired "why is it in that article and not in mine" argument; just because you find something elsewhere doesn't mean it is warranted, nor does it imply any sort of "bias". All one can accurately glean from those occurrences is that this is a huge project with nowhere near the people needed to ensure the entire place is in sync with its own guidelines and policies. As for your other claims, I have been quite clear in suggesting that you consider using the book as a reference. Find actual sections of text that support material that is currently unreferenced, instead of simply listing the book. If you need assistance in formatting references, I'd be happy to help, but we need to keep this discussion civil. --Ckatzchatspy 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for tweaking and adding the appropriate Wikipedia links. I fixed an error I made in noting the company name (I had forgotten to add the "and Sons"). I checked to ensure the link would still be correct and it is. Wikipedia redirects searches for John Roebling and Sons to the John A. Roebling article to which you linked. By the way, word has it there's a plaque on the Golden Gate Bridge acknowledging the Lyon Mountain ore. However, I was unable to get out and look for the plaque when I went to the bridge a few years ago, so I can't confirm that story. Jillsy (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)