User talk:Helpsome/Archive 3

Groundhog Day

The reason you offered for your revert was nonsensical and nonexistent. As such, it constitutes disruptive editing. Kindly try to be more constructive. If you believe a (whole) section from an article must be deleted, you might want to bring the matter up in the talk page first. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The information is duplicated from the production section therefore my edit summary was completely true and not "nonsensical and nonexistent". Stop trying to push your personal preferences on the article. It has already been removed by other editors. You should take this to the talk page before POV pushing. Helpsome (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The information is evidently notable enough to merit its own section, as was done. Your groundless assertion that I'm "trying to push...personal preferences" is one more unacceptable act from your part and I'm taking it as harassment. If anyone needs to take a time-out here, step back and rethink his actions, I'd say it would be the editor who has already been involved in controversial behavior in Wikipedia. Please try to behave yourself. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

So you don't want to apologize for outright lying and pushing your own POV? Helpsome (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize. I have no problem apologizing but it's for confusing you with another editor who I, honestly though mistakenly, thought was persisting in removing the item in question. There was never any kind of "lying" on my part, nor, of course, any "personal viewpoint" in this. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice non-apology. You can claim to have confused me for someone else, but that doesn't explain why you said my edit (with a summary explaining it) was "nonsensical and nonexistent" and when I replied to your statement you immediately labeled it "an unacceptable act" and "harassment" and threatened to have me blocked. Since you made wild insinuations on your talk page (the fact that trolls have written things on my userpage which was then deleted is in no way evidence that I should be blocked) which you coupled with a demand that I don't reply or you would have me banned, I would appreciate it if you kept away from this talk page. Helpsome (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted lead edits for Four Noble Truths

I thought the edit of the lead for Four Noble Truths was good. I regretted seeing it reverted by you and made reference to it in the Talk page. I believe I understand your reasoning for the revert, but I respectfully disagree and feel that reinstating the edits would improve the article and move it forward. PeterEdits (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The changes were very POV and completely unreferenced. It claimed "the Buddha followed a fourfold pattern used by ancient Indian physicians" where is there any evidence of "ancient Indian physicians" doing this? Helpsome (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The evidence for "ancient Indian physicians" is already within the article.

It is also at Dukkha.

Editors should have no problem finding additional good citations and elaborating on this important theme with perhaps something similar to this.

The lead needs to include the deleted phrase "the Buddha followed a fourfold pattern used by ancient Indian physicians"

PeterEdits (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the article says "Buddha is often compared to a great physician" whereas the rewrite of the lede claimed "the Buddha followed a fourfold pattern used by ancient Indian physicians". Those aren't the same thing at all. Helpsome (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Understand your point and have incorporated it into the lead statement I added to the article. PeterEdits (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. And it's WP:UNDUE: it's not relevant enough to mention in the lead. See my response at the talkpage. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree. There is a section within the article that specifically details how the FNT appear as a diagnostic medical model and because of it the Budhha is referred to as a Great Physician. If it is relevant enough to have its own section it is relevant enough to be in the lead. PeterEdits (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Four Noble Truths#Lead - revision April 25, 2015 at 09:29. Please continue there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kōdō Sawaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takada. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Herman Raucher

I am Herman Raucher's daughter and I want to add his official website to his Wikipedia page, as well as correct biographical details that are wrong here. Several of his books are about to be back in print as e-books I'd like to announce that here. Can you please advise me the right way to do this? Thank you.

Please read both WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your family. Helpsome (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Rape Jihad

Hello, and good day. On 28th April you reverted a section blanking in the Rape jihad article. As this blanking was considered to be a part of consensus by some users and tendentious by one user I was wondering if you would be so kind enough to comment on the TP of the article telling us why you thought the section removal was something to be reverted. I hope I am not being rude and you have every right to not comment , but we were hoping that if you made a comment the matter will be cleared up. I am also involved in the matter and took the liberty of looking at your edits made during that time, and I construed (perhaps wrongly) that you were patrolling for vandalism, saw section blanking from an anon IP and reverted the action to prevent vandalism. But I may be wrong. so if you can please come to the TP of Rape jihad it will help a great deal in resolving a dispute. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your assumption was correct. I saw a massive section being blanked with no reason given in the edit summary. When the same person did it again but provided a reason this time, I left it alone. Helpsome (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Murano Glass Counterfeit

Hi Helpsome. I would like to better understand the reason why the paragraph "how to recognize original Murano Glass" was removed twice and considered as promotional material. The paragraph was not referring to any product on sale and only meant to share valuable information and tricks to differentiate original art. In addition, the same day I posted the article, I contacted your wikipedia colleague Willian Gwillerm and followed the procedure to change the article and make it compatible with the copyrights policy. Is there something else required in order to let the article appearing on wikipedia? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.225.228 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about these edits? You don't think phrases like

All genuine Murano glasses are magnificent masterpieces beyond imagination. Once you hold a real Murano glass article in your hand, you will see the sunlight shining through the different colors of the Murano glass giving you a wow effect.

and

Buy from a recognized online shop, where you can not only have the possibility to buy genuine Murano glass from a trusted source but also read more about the Murano glass articles, contemporary Murano glass artists and watch videos

are promotional? All of which are "referenced" by an online shop selling Murano glass. Helpsome (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Helpsome for your quick reply. I see what you mean, however, no direct reference was made to a particular webshop in the text. Anyway, considering your point of view, would it be fine if I cut the text that you referred to, I remove the additional references and I just mention the source with a reference to the original article? In that way only the pure information is displayed. Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline15 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No, because the sole reason you have for adding this information is to promote a company you are affiliated with (which you would still be doing by "mentioning the source"). This is both spamming and a conflict of interest. Helpsome (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mudra

I need a second opinion, are these edits at Mudra just inappropriate SPS or probably SPAM? The links are directed at websites that offer some kind of service but also some info. JimRenge (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think they are just bad sources. The same person has added these and these so I think they just don't understand how WP:RS works. You might want to start a conversation on their talk page about it. Helpsome (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JimRenge (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

roll bonding

dear Helpsome, you undid a small paragraph I wrote on roll bonding, because I self-cited a scientific paper co-authored by myself. That paper does not earn me any money, it is published by an organization I do not belong to. It was blind peer reviewed and double checked by two scientists. It is an original and thrusthworthy source of information, sceintifically proven, much more sound than many wiki pages. I really do not agree and do not understand your revert. Are you an expert of roll bonding? If not, would you please considering your revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strano.m (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding links to your own work is both spamming and a conflict of interest. As the guidelines state: If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page. Helpsome (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism in Singapore

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (User: Ronggy creating probable hoax series) about them. JimRenge (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nagarjuna

Sir: I understand why you deleted references to Richard Jones because you mistakenly think I know him, but why did you delete references to Jay Garfield and Jan Westerhoff too? These three scholars all have works I think Wikipedia readers would find valuable. You even deleted my corrections to the forms to the reference section! Can I add content referring to at least dead Buddhist scholars or is that now forbidden too?

Deeply confused,

Wpaul1972 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC) WPaul1972

What I did was revert your edits because once again you were promoting Richard Jones. You didn't "correct" the reference section, you added Richard Jones. Please stop attempting to use wikipedia to promote Richard Jones. Helpsome (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is getting insulting. First, in the reference section I correct the form of the entries so that they were all consistent. Perhaps you did not look before you acted.

I also added other scholars and a new point to another section. You must have deleted all that without looking too. Your fixation on Richard Jones seems bizarre if not irrational. But since you are the keeper of the gate I will not try to add anything by anyone again.

Wpaul1972

You were asked point blank two times if you were also Shankara1000 who, like you, has done nothing except add Richard Jones as references to articles. You ducked it. You were asked point blank if you had any relation to Richard Jones and you simply replied that you weren't Richard Jones (which is not what I asked). It is obvious that your role here is to promote Richard Jones so please stop acting as though you are being persecuted. You aren't. Helpsome (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is what I reverted. There is no "correction" here simply you adding Richard Jones yet again to the reference section. Helpsome (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sir: I am not shankara1000 (and I don't remember you asking if I was him or her) or Richard Jones or related to him or know him. I am not promoting him. I just think his work like the others I included is excellent and worth the attention of the Wikipedia readers. What is truly bizarre and I don't understand is why you deleted the other references even if you have an obsession with one of several scholars I referenced -- I am not promoting Jay Garfield, Jan Westerhoff, Edward Conze, Jeffrey Hopkins or Lex Hixon -- and before you ask, no I am related to any or them or know them either.

Still deeply confused,

Wpaul1972

You don't recall your own talk page? And I already pointed out that I didn't delete any "other references" because you didn't add any other references. If you are going to persist in outright lying, please don't bother to post on my talk page. Helpsome (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Now saying I'm lying is going too far. You didn't ask me if I was sankara 1000 and you did delete my other references on more than one occasion. So I still have to ask if you read what you deleted. Can I speak to your advisor?

Wpaul1972 — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

... advisor?? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes lying. As I pointed out already, on your own talk page I said "I will ask you both are you Shankara1000 and do you have any connection to Richard Jones?" and now you are pretending I never asked that question. If you post anything else on this talk page it will be deleted and ignored. Helpsome (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Message regarding reverts

Hello. I hope all is well.

I received a message indicating that some citations I provided were removed because they "seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia". I looked over the guidelines for citations and I was hoping to get some clarification regarding what made these citations "inappropriate". It seemed to me that some kind of citation was preferable to leaving the information without citations. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. There are additional citations I would like to make but I don't want to waste everyone's time if they are just going to be removed.

Thanks for your help and consideration.

Clevernameguy, a blog is not a reliable source. Your edits have almost solely consisted of adding this same blog to numerous articles. I also note that your account was created two days after Lebeau007 was warned for doing the same thing. Do you have any relation to that account and/or the blog you keep attempting to add to articles? Helpsome (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

is your username supposed to be ironic?

References are not necessary for the gameplay info (the source of it is the released game itself, one can consult it to check) and the lead section already summarizes this stub perfectly well. --185.34.28.184 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Consulting a game yourself is original research and tags go at the top of the article as per WP:MOS. Please keep your insults to yourself. Helpsome (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's like plot, where the source is the published work (movies or books have just plot, games have plot + gameplay for content but it's the same deal). And what else do you think so much "needs to be summarized" for the lead from this stub? --185.34.28.184 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines provided by Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games (like the MOS for books) says it should be concise and nothing is said about no need for references. That section claimed facts ("stages begin to repeat after stage 31" and "These stages repeat four times" etc.) with no reference at all. Helpsome (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that vandalism notice! I press the wrong button on accident. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. Helpsome (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Some links are not spam

Before I go through your edits and revert all your removals of publicliterature.org links, I would like to know why you characterize them as "spam". This looks like a legitimate noncommercial public service site that offers searchable versions of classic books that are no longer under copyright. It is a useful resource for this encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

They were all slipped in years ago (most back in 2008) by a series of IPs who made no edits other than adding those links to articles. Single purpose accounts used for additions of external links is spamming. Further, they are nothing more than mirrors of existing work from LibriVox and Project Gutenberg. Helpsome (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia.

I recently received a message from you regarding "making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia." I would not consider my edits to be 'unconstructive.' Rather, I would consider you reverting my edits as having a negative impact on the pages I have attempted to edit and the Wikipedia's reputation a as an unbiased source of information.

I have attempted to remove content that can be considered defamatory from three pages that you and 'Mean as Custard' have been monitoring. You claim that the content is supported. This, in fact, is true. The content is supported; however, it is supported by articles authored by individuals who do not check their facts. These authors make unsubstantiated claims that you are assuming to be true, because the articles they author can be found on the Internet. You cannot categorically claim that content is accurate if it is supported by an article found on the Internet, assuming the article is not found in a blog or other such platforms you deem to be unreliable. The Internet is populated with information that is entirely inaccurate written by individuals who have little to no knowledge of the topics they discuss. This practice is particularly damaging when individuals post libelous material to tarnish another individual's image.

Please stop reverting my edits. I am not trying to 'vandalize' the pages I am attempting to edit. I am attempting to remove negative content that is untrue and supported by articles on the Internet that make false allegations with little or no evidence to support them.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanpatten (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You are coming very close to making legal threats by claiming editors are posting "libelous material". This edit summary claims an editor should be blocked and is "posting defamatory material".

Wikipedia is about verifiability. What you don't like happens to be referenced. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Helpsome (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Knee pad. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —Darkwind (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sure your edits were intended in good faith, the material you were reverting was not obvious vandalism, nor did it fall under any of the other three-revert rule exceptions. As such, since you were clearly edit warring with Jjohn125 (t c) on Knee pad, I had little choice but to block you as well. —Darkwind (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)