User talk:Llambert

Welcome!

Hello, Llambert, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ed!^(talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Instead of talking about why everyone else on Wikipedia is wrong, talk about why you're right. That usually produces better results. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're heading straight into disruptive editing territory. Please stop throwing around accusations on noticeboards about things that happened months ago and just edit the encyclopedia. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Thank you for your message. I obviously did something wrong, but I am not sure what it was. Could you explain this to me? From my perspective, the only thing I did was to ask politely a question according to the guidelines. And all I got in response was attacks. I tried to explained why the attacks against me were wrong. I don't believe I attacked anybody or was rude to anybody. Was I?

I will appreciate the feedback. Llambert (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly suggestion[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to give you a couple of suggestions. As I mentioned on the Wikiquette page, people here tend to have negative reactions to people who are on Wikipedia to promote a business interest. Once people suspect that you have a conflict of interest, or if you in fact acknowledge that you do have one, then your edits to that subject will receive much more scrutiny, which is why the policy recommends that you not edit the articles at all. You should, rather, propose changes on the article talk page and let neutral editors evaluate them for their appropriateness.

Generally speaking, Wikipedia's policies are not intended to be punitive, and you will not find much interest in punishing someone for a minor infraction that happened six months ago or more. Of course if you can demonstrate a pattern of that sort of behavior continuing in the intervening time period then someone could appropriately be sanctioned. But really, my best advice to you is to drop this particular line of inquiry and get on with editing the encyclopedia, as Sarek mentioned above.

Wikipedia can be a rough and somewhat difficult place to get used to and the learning curve for new users can be pretty steep. In fact, if you would propose what changes you would like to see made on the article talk pages in question, I would be happy to evaluate them myself and tell you whether I think they are appropriate or not, along with an explanation of my thinking and links to appropriate policies. Perhaps then you can get a better understanding of how things work or don't work and why.

Just a couple of suggestions for you to consider. — e. ripley\^talk 16:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I do accept your offer and I thank you for your help. As I mentioned in the Wikiquette page, I don't believe the tags were warranted because there was no COI involved. So I think they should be removed. Llambert (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our conflict of interest policy states: "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing." You wrote on wikiquette alerts, "you can assume that I have contact with the subject". Knowing the subject is a closer relationship than that of the average Wikipedia editor and we consider that sufficient to indicate a conflict of interest. The tag is not intended to harass you. It is intended to help other editors be aware that the article may need to be closely watched for conformance to our biographies of living people policies. Yworo (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo is right. If you have a conflict of interest, which you have suggested that people should presume that you do, then the COI tag is appropriate as long as you are active at the article. Do you have specific suggestions for changes to the article that you'd like to make? — e. ripley\^talk 18:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I want to add the references that have been requested. These ones in Victor Celorio

http://www.famous-hispanic-inventors.com/inventors/2-inventors/7-victor-celorio

http://www.instabook.net/articles/interview%20sardi%2005261999.pdf

and these ones in InstaBook

Electronic bookstore vending machine - Patent 6012890 at freepatentsonline.com Electronic bookstore vending machine - Patent 6213703 at freepatentsonline.com

I would also like to add the appropriate links and references I had included in the Print on Demand article, which were deleted because the other articles had been tagged.Llambert (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that famous-hispanic-inventors.com is a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. There's no evidence of editorial control and no information about who has compiled or presented the information and therefore we have no way of knowing whether it's accurate. Is there another source that would cover this same information? If Victor Celorio has his own Web site then that can be used to source information about himself or his opinions, or if he's been interviewed by a newspaper or trade publication that could also be used. The Instabook .PDF link could be used to source some information, depending on what exactly you want to use it to support, and presuming that it is properly described and presented. It would be fine for instance as a source about his opinion about things, or factual information about himself or the product. I would caution you however that just because information is in a form or format that may be acceptable generally speaking, we must still exercise editorial judgment about what needs to be in articles. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every minute detail about a person or thing, it is a general interest encyclopedia that should present the most relevant information about a topic to lay readers, not every piece of information that exists on the planet. The patent should be fine depending on how it's being used, seems appropriate perhaps in the external links section. — e. ripley\^talk 14:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next step, then, would be for you to craft actual text that you want inserted into the article, supported by these sources. As I mentioned, much depends on exactly what you want added and how it is presented. — e. ripley\^talk 14:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you very much for your help. Llambert (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, I look forward to seeing what you put together. — e. ripley\^talk 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put together? Oh, no, no. I wasn't planning on writing anything else. I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I just added references where citations had been requested.Llambert (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]