User talk:Jabarke1

Re: Competition Cams Article

I have reconsidered, and posted my revised !vote. There's evidently a chance to work it still, but frankly, you're not helping yourself. Why is this company notable? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For starters, they hold over 50 patents in their respective industry and 42 of the 43 NASCAR engines that qualify weekly run their camshafts.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not contagious; you can't "catch" it from your customers. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the sources of ESPN, BusinessWeek, SEMA, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the notability of Competition Cams should never be questioned. Therefore, I should not even reply to this joke of a comment. However, if you take time to search the internet, NASCAR, NHRA, IHRA, or any performance enthusiasts in the United States or Europe, you will find that not a single ear has NOT heard of both the company and the contributions it has made to the racing and/or performance enthusiast industries. If you knew more about the topic, you would not have made such an arrogant comment. I would really appreciate if you took time to look at the sources, and the industry, and reconsidered your opinion.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I appreciate your post, and apologize if in my frustration I have been short. As this is my first article, any advice given to me is well-appreciated. Regarding to me not helping myself, you're probably right on that one. Thanks again.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop interrupting the AFD discussion

The AFD page is for a discussion of the merits of an article, between WP editors. You do not help your case by keeping interrupting that discussion. You asked me to reconsider my view, and I have done so, in a way that you may find helpful. However, when I tried to save my further comment, I found there was an edit conflict with you arguing for your article. If you are improving your article, you should edit material into it, not post it to the AFD page. Having SUBSTANTIALLY altered the article, it would be approopriate for you to add a note to that effect to the AFD page. But having once 'voted' for retention (a matter on which you have a conflict of interst anyway as creator), you should keep off it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration and advice. I have made additional changes to the article and am currently on the United States PTO site tracking all of the company's registers, trademarks, and patents. Thanks again. --Jabarke1 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You will find that I have now changed my vote and written something modestly positive. You are a new editor and I am afraid the rest of us have given you a rough time of it. However in my view you have addressed the issues raised. I hope the experience will not put you off. I would suggest that rather than rtyin to create another article immediately, you look around WP for articles on subject that you know about and make corrections, where you find errors. However, unlike when I started editing 2-3 years ago, it is now usual for articles to cite their sources. It is vital that you should do so. The correct procedure, if your article gets deleted and you think that was inappropriate is not to re-create it, but to ask for a deletion review. If necessary, you can create an article in a "sandbox" (where other people are unlike to interfere with it) and moveit to the encyclopaedia when finished. If it is in the encyclopaedia, but is still work in progress, it is worth tagging it "under construction" (in double curly brackets), which will warn over-enthusiastic editors that the article is unfinished and not ready for its quality to be judged. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Peterkingiron, I truly appreciate your open-mindedness and patience with my article, as this one is my first. Being that it is my first article, it was very much a learning experience. I am also grateful for your advice, and I would have appreciated if the other veteran editors had been so kind. Thanks again.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I will also suggest that part of the problem is that you are a professional: a professional copywriter. The things which make good ad copy are the things which get articles deleted (and in extreme cases, the earth salted where they once stood): promotional and advocacy language, rather than language conveying a neutral point of view, use of second-person, and other advertising-style habits. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - While I truly appreciate your comments and advice, I do hope that you have noticed the change of writing style in my article. I understand your opinion and I agree, which is why I completely erased and re-wrote the article to make sure there was no second person, or any other style of advertorial-type writing. I also write PR, company reports, and brochures. Therefore, I am not ignorant to the factual, observational style of writing. Nevertheless, I truly appreciate your advice and your opinion. I simply ask for your patience, as this is my first article and I have worked endlessly on edits for both accuracy and neutrality. Thanks again.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please don't canvass for votes. You should read WP:CANVASS. As I check the AfD pages regularly, I was aware that you've made changes to the Competition Cams article before you canvassed me on my talkpage. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you noticing the edits. I apologize as the message was not meant to canvass or persuade, but rather to inform.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

You've removed the COI tag from the Competition Cams article. Are you claiming that you have no conflict of interest; that you are not a former or current employee of, service provider to, or owner of, the company? Frankly, I believe we've pretty much all understood you to be tacitly admitting that you do ad or PR work for them, or have in the past. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a veteran editor, I would have expected that you read the entire Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest article. Since you haven't, please allow me to point some things out to you.

• Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.

Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identity themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

• Comment-I am a performance enthusiast. I grew up around auto racing, performance engines and the like my entire life. I feel that it is a competitive industry that warrants attention, and so do its industry leaders. Therefore, this is NOT a single purpose account that was started for the intention to write one article about a company for whom I allegedly work. I started this account to edit and write academic pieces that Wikipedia has LONG felt did not merit proper attention. There has been a lack of knowledge and respect given to an industry about which many people are passionate, and I plan to provide some of that knowledge, of this industry and a few others.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Then I apologize for misunderstanding your interest in the matter (one which has not interested me since the days of Ed Roth and CARtoons magazine). By the way, could you see clear to creating an article on contingency sponsorship? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • I would be glad to do so, although it would consist of merely more definition than article. If I do, it is possible that I may need the assistance from you or another senior editor. Since my first article took an eternity to be accepted. How long should it be? Should it include examples?--Jabarke1 (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Where's the evidence to support this allegation? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Orange Mike. I have requested the "evidence" for this claim long ago, yet I have not received so much as a comment. Should I believe that the lack of evidence, coupled with the aggressive editing on my user page, calls for WP:BLANKING?

--Jabarke1 (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The case is presented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jabarke1. The accusation is that User:Trenay is either an alternate account, or a real person with an account who is solely there to provide back up to User:Jabarke1. Single purpose accounts are not unusual at AFD and are usually just tagged with {{spa}}. I don't know why User:Tnxman307 chose to file a formal sockpuppetry case. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jabarke1. If Trenay is not an alternate account, it's probably a meatpuppet. Be careful of this in the future. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have since made another contribution to Wikipedia, without Trenay's edits, comments or assistance. I know the particular user you speak of personally, but I assure you the purpose of HER account has absolutely nothing to do with my articles creations or editions.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Edelbrock has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Nsaa (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this. I Agree with you on the removal. Sorry for tagging your talk page. Nsaa (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Edelbrock constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - I am not vandalizing pages. Please stop attempting an edit war with your bias opinions. I will delete any company's products section for one reason - this is an encyclopedia, NOT a product brochure or catalog. Please stay off my talk page and leave my edits alone unless you have a substantiated argument. Thank you.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Edelbrock. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 23:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not start an editing war. If you continue to do so, YOU will be blocked from editing. The edit that I made was for a very good reason. From where does your vandalism accusation come?

--Jabarke1 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Edelbrock. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 23:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop and discuss this

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edelbrock. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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.  – iridescent 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)C)

Having looked into this more closely, you are clearly acting appropriately here and the user "warning" you is, as you may be aware, headed for a block if he continues to abuse automated tools in tis editwar - however, please stay away from this article to avoid editwarring. A day of The Wrong Version won't end the world, and there's no point getting an editwar block for this. – iridescent 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration or understanding, and I will gladly stay away from the article. However, the initially deleted section does warrant deletion. I ask that if I am unable to so, another editor should at least consider deleting the section in question. Thanks again.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(block template - now un-necessary) I have enacted a 3 hour block, the smallest "option" sanction. Per WP:BRD the appropriate response after a revert (or two) is to open a discussion; this you have not done. WP:EDIT WAR does not concern itself over who is right, but to descaling the reverting to a discussion. When this block expires I strongly suggest that you make your case on the article talkpage and try to get WP:Consensus upon your viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have now unblocked this account, given the comment made post my blocking but while I was composing the block message. The autoblock may still be in place, in which case would anyone with some expertise in this area perform the necessary unblock on the ip (I couldn't find it!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:O.. Anyways, I wanted to appologize about earlier, for reverting. Again, Sorry. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly alright. Thank you for the unblock LessHeard vanU, and to II MusLiM HyBRiD II , I apologize for the persistence.

Orphaned non-free image (File:COMPCams.jpg)

You've uploaded File:COMPCams.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:CompCamsLogo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:CompCamsLogo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)