User talk:Sash-windows

May 2017

Hello, I'm Altamel. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Sash window have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Please be aware that repeatedly adding links to commercial websites in a promotional manner may cause that link to be blacklisted, preventing its addition anywhere on Wikipedia. Altamel (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sash window. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Altamel (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There have been two problems identified with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia; and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Altamel,

I accept your point of view, however it's on an opinion basis as to the origins, of sash windows and I accept your point my writeup is ambiguous, and not factual enough.

I have recently written an article of high value and absolutely not of commercial nature, it's purest intention to help others. It's 4500 + words long on how to re-cord/re-rope a sash window on a budget for a homeowner, and explained in depth that would certainly make the job do-able for anyone.

How would I go about providing this high value info on the sash window wiki page - your insight would be appreciated.

Here's a link to satisfy yourself regarding the non commercial aspect of the article: https://londonsashwindows.com/replace-broken-sash-cord-for-less-than-10/

Regards Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8880:89BC:B093:6976:4CB3:65EC (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to deleted message

Hi Christopher. This is in response to the message you left earlier on this talk page. First, you are correct that the link to urbanjoinery.co.uk is purely commercial. Not only was the reference placed to promote the website, it failed to substantiate the statement it was supposed to support. Thank you for pointing that out; I have now removed the link.

Now, as to using londonsashwindows.com as a reference: I'm not convinced. First, you claim that your website is not commercial. Yet the very first thing I see on your article is the website banner inviting the reader to "Book Your Free Design Visit" and "Request a Quotation." Your website is a commercial website. It is clearly set up to sell sash windows. Second, a reference must meet some particular requirements to qualify as a Wikipedia's reliable source that can be used as citation. One way for a website to be considered reliable is to demonstrate some level of editorial control. Besides the writer of a webpage, there must be multiple people checking the facts and editing the page for clarity and grammar. More eyes on the webpage decreases the likelihood of a factual error slipping under the radar before the page is published. It would be even better if the website listed the references from which it obtained its information, such that anybody could factcheck the page themselves. Given your expertise, I would love to just take your word for it, but since there is no way to verify your identity on Wikipedia, I must evaluate londonsashwindows.com based on how the website presents itself. Londonsashwindows.com doesn't give any details about its level of editorial control, nor are there any references listed on the article that you gave. I would prefer using references other than londonsashwindows.com in Wikipedia's articles.

If you are interested in using your proprietary experience to expand the Sash window article with information referenced to books, scholarly literature, magazines, or newspapers, I am willing to ask the admin who blocked you to grant your a second chance. However, please refrain from adding a link to londonsashwindows.com or any other website that primarily sells a service. If you have any questions, please ask them here on your talk page. Although you are blocked from editing any other page, you are able to leave messages here. Altamel (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Altamel,

Firstly, I'll say sorry because I thought you to be a lesser man and you proved me wrong with your response.

In fact when I was banned, I thought, wow Wikipedia has turned to a womens forum for hand bags as well, better I don't provide high quality information elsewhere, wikipeadia needs people like yourself while it certainly does not need people like the blocker of my account.

I concede the point that my website is first and foremost, a commercial website. I am sure you realise just looking at the domain alone, it's the most valuable domain in London for my niche it would be exceedingly poor business practice to use it as a reference site.

However the information I provided was with the intent of driving interested parties to the topic of sash windows to my site not people looking to buy windows. Wikipedia has no value for that, my email here could of been spent better if this was a marketing exercise. There is absolutely no traffic that will come from this page that will create a revenue for me. The information I provided you was a brilliant account of why we should not just assume Robert Hooke the inventor of sash windows. My link is added because it collates all references and images to satisfy proofs beyond any reasonable doubt of this, as well as drawing reference and links to wiki for that proof(you see my intention not just to draw traffic, but hopefully inspire someone, that may know more to contribute as this piece is far from complete, if there's ever such a thing), and I think perhaps your right, I should of also included various Historic evidence pieces which I may have omitted so my apologies for that(although I think I referenced them mainly in my article - perhaps you could send me a copy of what I wrote).

The information provided is not information I expect you to take my word for, it is documented fact, now whether that documented fact is accurate ;)

I hope you might consider re-instating my work, which I am happy to improve and even I would go to the lengths of making that page on my website plain html with no commercial aspect at all, as the intent is not commercial, but of interest, and it is certainly improved quality, on a book where you'd need read 500 pages to find the reference! That book is available for sale at amazon if you google the title that's all you'll find, the information is not free....and therefore in breach of wikipedia guidelines? Just a guess, if not it should be. I don't want people to pay for good info.

Overall the piece requires considerable re-write as there are many parts that the facts are less than perfect and I would be happy to be a significant contributor as time allows but I feel I should be credited appropriately for expert input.

Another example:

"How to Fix Rattling Windows". SFGate. Retrieved 23 March 2017.

or rattling in the wind (due to shrinkage of the wood).[7]

An adsense input of low quality, information readily available all over the internet that is also written better elsewhere a hundred times. I brought information together, a one time internet piece, no other info collated in such depth and it was deleted, think about it please or even read what's said it's quite interesting.

Regards

Christopher Gould

London Sash Window Repairs

Managing Director

sorry and another thing, I'd like to supply some quality images, royalty free of my own as there is a lack of good imagery also.

Hi Christopher. I've read over your article carefully, and here's why I still prefer Wikipedia's current version over your edited version. The version prior to your edits read The invention of the sash window is sometimes credited, without conclusive evidence, to Robert Hooke. Others see the sash window as a Dutch invention. Wikipedia does not assume that Hooke invented the sash window, only stating that some historians have suggested that he may have been the inventor. On the other hand, your edit to the page stated It is widely accepted sash windows have their origins from either Robert Hooke or the Dutch as the Orangery at Ham House had classical Dutch influence and design and is conclusively known to be built 1670s. Since we have no earlier record of sash windows this seems Logical. Robert Hooke did however, architect the rebuild of London with his good friend Sir Christopher Wren after the Great Fire of London in 1666, many have attributed the design to him. While this seems logical no evidence to support this can be found and well known projects such as Montagu House dated 1679 and The Royal Observatory Greenwich. dated 1675 that he is known to be lead architect did not originally have sash windows. First, as my recent edit to sash window demonstrates, it is not all widely accepted that sash windows were invented by Hooke or the Dutch. Some authors believe that an unknown English architect was responsible.

Furthermore, you tried to support your hypothesis with your own article on londonsashwindows.com: There is however some doubt, as the inventor of sash windows, why he did not use them in the Montague House and The Royal Observatory in Greenwich, built in 1675?[...]This is by no means conclusive as the design may have been without the sash window, however one might think the pioneer of such a brilliant design may well like to implement also! But your reasoning is logically flawed. Even if Hooke was the inventor of the sash windows, that does not guarantee that every building he built after the 1670s had to contain a sash windows. Just because some of the buildings Hooke built lack sash windows does not prove that he didn't invent it. Ultimately, it is still uncertain—not definitively true or false—whether Hooke invented the sash window. As that is what the Wikipedia article currently states, there is no change needed.

SFGate is a reputable American newspaper, and meets the requirements of Wikipedia's reliable source policy. I inserted it to replace a spamlink. Altamel (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)