User talk:Dryamaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dryamaka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Please note that one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Furthermore, please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Amsterdam, NY

Please do not use Wikipedia as a bulletin board for information about yourself, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. If a person does not have some claim of "notability" under Wikipedia guidelines, adding that person's name to a list of notable residents of a city is not an appropriate use of your privilege as a contributor. (See WP:SOAP.) This is why I have removed your listing of Rob Millan as a "notable". --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Rob Millan worked on my campaign for City Alderman in 2004 and is now a political consultant for the British PM's office in London, having concurrently worked on his Juris Doctor through a joint program with New York University and the London School of Economics. He has local presence/influence is as a regular contributor to The Amsterdam Recorder (newspaper) and 1490 AM WCSS radio. He has also been published in the Journal of Latin American Studies (JLAS), having completed his these on the Mexican government. This should be regarded as "notable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Dryamaka (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks for explaining. Maybe he's notable in your eyes, but your personal knowledge of his accomplishments is not a sufficient basis to cause him to be listed as a "notable" here, and it's not clear from what you say the he would be considered notable in Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, and Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Orlady (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is Wikiepdia, not Britannica. You are also in no position to dispute an Amsterdamian, as you know nothing first-hand of the city or town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryamaka (talk • contribs)

Yes, this is Wikipedia, fortunately or unfortunately. Wikipedia has policies, notably WP:Verifiability, which says (in part) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I did not invent that policy. However, because of that policy, I am in a position to dispute an Amsterdamian, because I can say that "facts" that are not backed by reliable sources can't be included in Wikipedia. Be that as it may, what is your evidence that I "know nothing first-hand of the city or town"? --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Rob Millan, thanks for supplying additional details in your latest edits. With those details, I continue to contend that Wikipedia should not list this individual as a notable Amsterdamian. His sole claim to notability, based on that write-up, seems to be authorship of the 2005 paper A Comparative Study of the Leaders of Modern Mexico, which apparently was his bachelor's degree thesis at Union College. Last time I looked at Wikipedia policy, the fact that a person wrote and published a PhD dissertation, master's thesis, or bachelor's thesis is normally not sufficient basis for listing them in Wikipedia articles. Accordingly, I am going to delete that listing yet again. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS - A hint: When you post a comment on talk pages, insert four tildes (~~~~) after your comment to add a "signature." :-) --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The thesis was submitted as research and eventually was published in the cited source- no more citation is needed. I'm an attorney, I should know a little about publishing and citations. Publication can be verified the the Journal online with subscription rights/access--Dryamaka (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To repeat: the fact that a person wrote and published a PhD dissertation, master's thesis, or bachelor's thesis is normally not sufficient basis for listing that person in Wikipedia articles.
I have published several papers in academic journals, but I am 100% sure that this would not qualify me to be listed as a "notable" resident in a Wikipedia article about a town where I have lived, nor as a "notable alum" of an educational institution I attended. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia 'cannot' do shall not be used as grounds for article entry; entry is as valid as any other, ie) Todd Cetnar, Josh Beekman, etc.Dryamaka (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you (or I) consider them to be noteworthy, Todd Cetnar and Josh Beekman are both professional athletes who have been deemed notable for Wikipedia purposes. --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As for your reference to WP:NNC, that guideline explains why it is reasonable for Amsterdam (city), New York to include a list of the city's mayors. That list is relevant information about Amsterdam, even though the individual mayors are not notable in their own right. That guideline does not justify listing every person from the city who has published a journal article; the names of people like that are not particularly relevant to telling the story of Amsterdam. --Orlady (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence on listing Rob Millan is impressive, but you have still failed to provide any reliably sourced evidence that he is known outside limited circles. Please see WP:TEND, in particular the statement "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it." You have not shown why a ~24-year-old man who (1) published his bachelor's thesis, (2) managed your campaign for alderman, and (3) now works in London should be listed in an encyclopedia article as one of Amsterdam's most notable citizens of all time. None of the things you have told me about him is particularly unusual, the only item that is externally verified is that he wrote the bachelor's thesis (indeed, http://www.robmillan.com/aboutus.htm contradicts your assertions about his job in London, as it identifies him as working for the family travel agency business), and your personal connection with this young man suggests WP:COI issues. Surely you can do something more useful here than fighting to get his name in this Wikipedia article. --Orlady (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amsterdam (city), New York. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. As noted above and in numerous edit summaries, you have repeatedly re-added Rob Millan to the "notable Amsterdamians" list, but you have failed to provide any basis other than your own personal knowledge for your claim that Rob Millan deserves to be identified as a "Notable Amsterdamian," and even your claims regarding his accomplishments do not support a common-sense conclusion that he deserves to be called "notable". Your persistent refusal to heed WP:OR and WP:RS (particularly in view of your apparent WP:COI regarding this young man) constitutes disruptive editing behavior, and may outweigh the positive value of some of your other contributions to Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


FYI, Rob Millan is as non-notable today as he was yesterday... I have reverted your latest disruptive edit. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Amsterdam (city), New York. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Amsterdam (city), New York, you will be blocked from editing. Do not add information about the non-notable person Rob Millan to the article again; after this it will be considered disruption. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's definition of 'vandalism', no such events took place- no page-blanking, etc. An edit war is not considered 'vandalism.' Also, leave the arguments and points to attorneys who went to school for it. Lastly, any last-minute donations to Wikipedia as tax 'write-offs' will cease for 2008 on part our firm with a message sent with your username cited.

Regards, Kyle Devlin, Esq. Dryamaka (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amsterdam (city), New York. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Your repeated (and as yet unexplained) insistence on removing the name of Todd Cetnar from the list of notable people from this city is vandalism in that it removes legitimate content and it is disruptive editing in that it needlessly expends the time of other contributors. Moreover, as noted, it appears that you are beginning an edit war. Please stop. --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Eliot Spitzer. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Eliot Spitzer, you will be blocked from editing. If you feel that the edit I reverted should not have been reverted, please contact me. --Chris (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that you were warned not for removing information per se, but for not specifying why. I notice that you don't use edit summaries in most of your editing. Please start doing this, as then we would know why you were removing the information and not assuming you were trying to cover it up or otherwise vandalize. --Chris (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

If you remove that Spitzer once more, you can be blocked per WP:3RR. Lawrence § t/e 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)