User talk:Fjnainoa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Welcome...

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Fjnainoa, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Transcendent Man (film)‎, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

[edit] January 2008

  1. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Remove the COI template one more time and you'll be in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. Your overall behavior makes a strong case that your edits are in bad faith, and the 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reversions, it merely sets an absolute limit. This is fair warning, because you're very close to being blocked — TheBilly(Talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Raymond Kurzweil. Removal of clean up templates is not constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI

You keep demanding an "explanation", but none is needed. You are "Felicia Ptolemy", according to how you credited yourself on a photo you uploaded. You credited it to "Felicia Ptolemy", and released it into the public domain, asserting yourself as the copyright holder. You are the producer of this film, and obviously you and the other "ptolemy" user have a distinct conflict of interest. The COI template alerts others to that fact, that the article may be biased because of the close connection to this film that the primary contributor(s) have. As the user who has the conflict of interest, you are not a proper judge of whether there is such a conflict. As I explained in my edit summary, a number of editors have raised the COI objection (by warnings on the talk pages of both of you), and a second user re-added this template when you removed it. I'll be reporting you on the 3RR noticeboard and an admin may or may not choose to block you for your behavior. I'm running out of patience explaining the rules to you, and the way that you blank out these notices (of course, you are allowed to remove content from your own talk page) shows that you want to ignore the issue that is trying to be raised. I'll also be alerting others on the COI noticeboard, so rather than "win" some sort of victory you've only brought attention to your unconstructive behavior — TheBilly(Talk) 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI

This is absolutely the last warning you'll get for removing the conflict of interest template from Transcendent Man (film)‎. You are blatantly edit warring — TheBilly(Talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Transcendent Man has been created using the criteria for FUTURE FILMS that has been established by Wikipedia, from a template provided here on Wikipedia. A future film CAN NOT have a conflict of interest, because there is no one but the producers who know anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnainoa (talk • contribs)

Hello – I'm the admin who is dealing with the 3RR report made against you for repeated removal of tags. I declined to block you based on that report because it was made too late, but I would have blocked you had the report been made in a more timely manner. You may have created this article, but no one owns it. All editors are entitled to review and edit the article as they see fit. This includes good faith edits to add appropriate notices such as {{COI}} and {{advert}}.
I have to say that your comment above this one, about a future film being unable to have any conflicts of interest, is patent nonsense. The notability requirements for future films state that such films should not have articles unless they meet the notability guidelines, which requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, verifiable reliable sources. A few ELs can be found in the article to support that claim (although some are about the man or the producers instead of the film itself). Obviously, if the links are valid and true, this means that more people than just the producers know something about the film.
However, you state that "no one but the producers know anything about it, so there can be no conflict of interest." There's a conundrum with that, isn't there? Either the ELs and articles provide us and Wikipedia readers with accurate knowledge about the film, meaning the film is notable and someone besides the producers knows something about the film – or they're _not_ accurate, meaning the article about the film does not meet the notability requirements, no one knows anything about the film, and the article should be deleted. Which is it?
Of course articles on future films can be edited by people with conflicts of interests. It happens regularly, and it's pretty clear this article is in that category because it's more about the filmmakers/producers than about the subject of the film. Editing articles on subjects with which you have a COI can be done, but it's difficult to do with a neutral viewpoint. I have recommended to the editor who made the 3RR report that he make a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard about this article and its issues.
Please stop removing the COI and advert tags, because they're accurate. We welcome new editors and new articles on subjects that meet the notability standards. However, we will not tolerate disruptive or tendentious editing, and your edits have become disruptive. If you continue this disruption, you can and will be blocked from editing. Thank you. - KrakatoaKatie 07:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)