User talk:Fitzpatrickjm

Welcome

Hello Fitzpatrickjm,

Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.

These links might help you with your contributions:

• Tutorial
• Manual of Style
• Policies and Guidelines

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Community Portal and the Village Pump.

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like the Australia Portal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

Also, assuming you're an Adelaidean, have you considered participating in WikiProject Adelaide? Help is always needed!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Preferably, use four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome.--cj | talk 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a Matador?

Thanks for your edits to the American Motors article. I have no issue with the information you provide about the Matador’s popularity as a police vehicle. There is a section on that topic in the AMC Matador page. Please add more specific information about police use on that page, and not in the article about the entire company. The specific POV issue is with the statements you have added concerning the Matador's lack of success in its first year and thus making AMC use the advertising line "What's a Matador?". That is POV. If you have a source for this, then please provide it and the objections will be withdrawn. Moreover, your claim that "Ultimately, Matador became a steady seller- particularly to several police departments." is also false. Once again, any "steady" sales of the Matador were not mainly due to government orders. Another problem is with the paragraph that starts: "Interestingly, Matador relied on parts supplied by competitors ..." This is because AMC's strategy was to outsource many of its components. Please read further down and under the "Continuing business legacy" section you will find "Innovative strategies" where the following sentence details your "interestingly" comment: "... An essential strategy practiced by AMC was to rely on outside vendors to supply components in which they had differential advantages. This has finally been accepted in the US auto industry, but only after each of the Big Three experienced the failure of attempting to be self-sufficient..." Furthermore, AMC corporate strategy of sourcing components from outside vendors was not limited to the Matador's carburetor, steering column, etc. It was true for all of its automobiles and Jeeps as well. This was an integral approach from the inception of the firm -- look at the Nashs designed by someone else (Pininfarina) or built overseas (Nash Metropolitan) -- and continuing right through the very end of the AMC. Thank you for pointing out the value of your contribution, but I hope that you will now see why I reverted your edits the first time. Thank you, CZmarlin 05:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments. I was disappointed with the tone and substance of your comments. However, I am concerned that engaging in any further debate at this time would be a futile exercise. Hence. I suggest that the best resolution at this time is to leave the disagreement on the record, so that it can be noted by future researchers, who would be able to make their own inquiries.

In that regard, for the record, I stand by the material which I have presented.Fitzpatrickjm 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Swanky on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kim Dent-Brown 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kim

Please note that I am in the course of creating the page. Fitzpatrickjm 14:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Woodroofe

Please note the following

1. It does no harm to be civil
2. Threatening me is unlikely to achieve anything
3. I am perfectly entitled to delete instantly articles like yours which were unsourced and read like an advertisement.
4. Repeating links from the text to a "see also" is unnecessary and does not amount to providing reference.
5. Your article is full of unsourced advertisement type statements

As a compromise I'll give you time to properly reference the article and remove the spam. I'll even do some for you. jimfbleak 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and for reinstating the article.

For the record:

1. I have no connection with Woodroofe or Cadbury Schweppes (the current owner of the brand) other than as a consumer of their products.
2. Your actions were inappropriate and high handed, as evidenced by reinstating the article. Woodroofe is a well known regional brand with a long history.
3. I have not made any threats- I pointed out the action which would be necessary in reponse to apparently uninformed editing.
4. The balance of your comments read like "sour grapes".Fitzpatrickjm 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of the meaning of your last posting on my talk page, it wasn't me who restored the page - not of any great importance though. jimfbleak 05:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed the citation tag from the flavours section, but I can't see where you have sourced it. Have I overlooked something, or should the tag be restored? jimfbleak 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rude and unwarranted deletion of a serious article

I am placing on the record my complaint regarding your capricious, ignorant and high handed deletion of an article about an industry of major importance to South Australia.

Kindly refrain from interfering with this article, otherwise I will take appropriate action.Fitzpatrickjm 11:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:CIVIL. A previous editor had already redirected the article, and another had pointed out the blatant POV. Your comment of "I will take appropriate action" looks like a personal attack. Please keep your comments friendly and we might be able to resolve the issue. Thanks. Pedro |  Chat  11:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have some concerns about your behaviour. you have been uncivil to me, which I'm not bothered about, but I note your uncivil and threatening comments to Pedro above. Please read WP:CIVIL for guidance, and WP:OWN with regard to the right of any contributor to make valid edits to any article. In essence it says that creating an article does not give you ownership. Please also note that threatening or lack of civility to other uses can be grounds for having an account blocked; so far you only seem to have made minor threats to a couple of people, but I have concerns about a pattern developing as others attempt to edit articles you feel that you own. Thanks, Jimfbleak. ^{Talk to me.}07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Beerenberg Farm

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Beerenberg Farm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Beerenberg Farm is a significant South Australian producer of food products, and I believe that it is a valid subject for inclusion. Nonetheless, I am happy for consideration of various points of view to occur.Fitzpatrickjm 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment left on article talk page. I have withdrawn the PROD notice but I am still concerned the article is not independently sourced. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 00:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please note that I have no connection with Beerenberg Farm other than a purchaser and consumer of their products. I believe they have developed a reputation as a unique supplier of South Australian products. Fitzpatrickjm 12:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, what comment relating to this article? If you're referring to an edit summary then this is an automatically generated entry from Twinkle that outlines what action is being taken so how this could be seen as patronising is beyond even my own advanced understanding. Anyone involved with the Australian projects knows full well that i'm on a massive article clean-up drive for all those listed within Category:Companies of Australia, of which the first stage is removing all the corpcruft (articles that are blatent spam and/or do not meet WP:CORP, and correctly categorising those which should remain in preparation for further improvements. The article didn't meet the relevant criteria, was nominated for CSD, and was dispatched with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewinchester (talk • contribs)

Another user has just pointed out what you could have possibly been referring too. It was an incorrect selection while I was processing the article for AfD, so apologies for any offence caused (And forgetting to sign my above talk post too). Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of South Australian food and drink

Hi. Perhaps you'd like to use the articles talk page so we can work on tidying the article up and removing the POV ? Pedro |  Chat  11:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

categories and state pride

Hi Fitzpatrickjm. I see you've created a number of articles lately, and added Category:South Australia to quite a few more. In general, articles don't need that category if either they are already in a subcategory of it, or if the South Australian connection is only incidental to the subject of the article. If there's already a suitable subcategory, please use it rather than just the top SA category.

Also, if you create (or find) articles relating to South Australia, you can mark them on their talk page with {{WP Australia}} or {{WP Australia |Adelaide=yes}} if they specifically relate to Adelaide. There are a number of other WikiProject Australia parameters to mark it for other subprojects, too. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Harris Scarfe

At 11:15 UTC on May 28, 2007, you added the category of Companies of Australia to the article on Harris Scarfe. I am leaving a message to inform you that this both unnecessary and creates duplication. The article is already a member of Category:Retail companies of Australia which is a subcategory of Companies of Australia.

If you've been watching the Australia wikiproject, you will know that the Companies of Australia category is the subject of a major cleanup. Additionally, the big notice at the top of the category is there to remind you to think before placing articles at the top level, and instead find an appropriate sub-category to put them in. Sorry if I sound a little annoyed, but in the weeks I do get to pursue the category cleanup, there's usually 50 articles placed back there by editors who've not got the first clue what they're doing, or are simply ignorant and lazy. Please feel free to drop by my talkpage for any future guidance or assistance on this matter. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Beerenberg Farm on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Beale Piano

Hi, I read your message on my talk page. First, I must ask you to remain civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors, as these are basic Wikipedia ground rules.

As far as the article in question is concerned, almost all of your sentences were copied from the other article, with a couple of words changed here or there. For example, the first 9 words of your "history" section is identical to the first 9 words of the source article. You slightly paraphrased the first sentence of the second paragraph from the first sentence of the second paragraph of the other article. The next sentence was copied verbatim from the other article. The next sentence is another paraphrase, and the one after that is copied directly from a clause in the other article. The only thing not copied was the final sentence of the section, which I would have left, but it didn't make sense as the only sentence in the "history" section.

Since you insist that this section is not a copyright violation, what I'm going to do is mark it as a possible copyright violation, blank it per WP:CP and let a neutral editor make the determination. I hope this will be acceptable to you, as Wikipedia's copyright policies require strict avoidance of copyright infringement. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think there's another option, unless you're willing to rewrite the article using your own words. Also, I know you're new here, but the civility thing isn't an option -- it's a policy -- and you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating it. (Please don't take that as a threat but as friendly advice!) On the other hand, your suggestion that my identification of your contribution as copyright infringement might be defamatory suggests a legal threat, which is another type of conduct that will get you blocked from editing. In any case, truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation, and there is no question that your contribution constituted copyright infringement. I urge you to read the policies linked above, as I sincerely believe your experience here will be more pleasant if you understand them. Have a nice day! --Butseriouslyfolks 07:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please don't post the article from the other website anywhere at Wikipedia. (I'm sure you didn't realize what you were doing when you copied it to Talk:Beale Piano.) As for the material I have challenged, please do not repost it until somebody else has a chance to determine whether it is a violation. I have removed both from the talk page but replaced them with links so readers can follow what you are talking about. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Trend drinks

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Trend drinks. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I looked again at the article, and I stand on my position. What you did was taking the text from the history page, reworded it a bit and put it into Wikipedia. Something like 80% of the text I removed from the article is from the source page. While I assume that was done in good faith, this is not acceptable under Copyright laws. Following your second comment, I did not say anything on the merits of the subject of the article by itself, just that in its present form, it was a copyright violation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)