User talk:Jeffc529

Hello,

I am trying to get advice on how to stop someone "hijhacking" our Wikipedia listing. The page I am referring to is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack_%28newspaper%29" which unbeknownst to us was changed several times by a former "licensee" who was in breach of contract with our company Union Jack Publishing, Inc. USA.

As you will see the initial entry was made back in 2006, and remained like that until DMMILLAR changed it to make it appear as though the Canadian version he held legitimately for 6 months was the only Union Jack, which it of course is not. After spotting the change last month I edited the page and put it back to our domain, and it has been changed back again, by DMMILLAR. Today, I changed it back again, but seems a tedious and amateurish & childish way of dealing with this matter.

Any suggestions you may have would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jeff Choularton Union Jack Newspaper, USA Since 1982

Just a few Verifiable sources:

http://www.babcphiladelphia.com/babc-newsletter/ Look at the the RSS feed for "UNION JACK NEWSPAPER"

http://www.babc-pittsburgh.org/babc_links.asp Go down to UK News/General Information

http://www.anglotopia.net/anglophilia/union-jack-newspaper-for-anglophiles-and-ex-pats/

http://www.britishflorida.com/index.php/PublicationsBritish.html

http://juliagayle.com/juliagayleusamedia.html

http://www.britsource.com/British_Expat_Newspapers/California_Expat_Newspapers/

http://www.britsinternational.com/links.html Under British Newspapers in the USA

http://www.britamclub.com/links.html

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ujnews.com#

The last two links are using DMMILLAR's own words in his self promotion during the six month period he held a legitimate license to produce the Union Jack Newspaper back in 2012.

http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/76/62/79916276/documents/Union%20Jack%20Newspaper.pdf

excerpt from study DMMILLAR created: ABOUT UNION JACK The Union Jack (UJN) is the only national British newspaper serving North America and has a readership in print of 300,000. Founded in 1982 and until recently only published in the United States and online, UJN has been providing news for the British community, as well as the general populace wanting stories and features from a British standpoint. Currently, it has nine employees in the United States.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/18/newspaper-for-british-expats-hopes-to-make-mark-in-canada/

and finally . . .

please take a look at the history of this page and see the initial entry was made for Union Jack Newspaper produced and published in the United States. I do not see how some person can come along with his own blurb about something of an irrelevant matter and "replace" our information? Please explain if I'm missing something Jim1138?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jeffc529 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm in bewilderment as to why I am the person being blocked, as I am the person (organization) who started this Wiki page. DMMILLAR came along in 2012 . . . 6 years after page created and started changing facts unbeknownst to me, then eventually brazenly changed the page to reflect a totally different business, deleting all my information. My question is why am I considered to be the "vandal" when all I want is my information on my page? Thank you, Jeff Choularton Jeffc529 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please pay very close attention to the message at the bottom of this page: your original article has been moved and renamed, you have been editing the second version which is now about a Canadian newspaper. This is called "disambiguation" - there are 2 papers name the same thing so one is now "Canadian" and the other "American". By the way, due to conflict of interest you should NOT be editing any article about a company or organization that you're involved with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Response to Bwilkins

I find Bwilkins comments kind of ridiculous and somewhat hypocritical. Firstly, DMMILLAR has continued to use our Trademark "Union Jack newspaper" name after breach of contract stated earlier on this page. Since he started publishing in May last year, has not managed to put out a newspaper every month and has actually not put out a newspaper since April. I think "former" publisher might be more apt. So when you say I shouldn't be editing an article about another company or organization, how does that rule apply to DMMILLAR who "hijacked" this site back in June 2012? Shouldn't he be blocked for changing my information about my organization to his own? FYI: DMMILLAR also has yet another photo nominated as "Plagiarized snippet of full image available at http://www.ctvnews.ca/bank-of-canada-unveils-new-plastic-bills-1.659770, copyright Bank of Canada, not owned by uploader as claimed" . . . does seem to be a pattern developing here don't you think?

June 2013

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Union Jack (newspaper). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

You should add those references to the Union Jack (newspaper) article. They need to go there, not here.
Use the cite web: Template:Cite web, if possible. Example:
<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate=31 May 2013}}</ref>
(don't use the nowiki part btw). The url should begin with an http://.
An example: <ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.example.org/ |title = My Favorite Things, Part II |last = Doe |first = John |publisher = Open Publishing |date = 30 April 2005 |website = Encyclopedia of Things |accessdate= (todays date) 6 July 2005 }} </ref> produces:
Doe, John (30 April 2005). "My Favorite Things, Part II". Encyclopedia of Things. Open Publishing. Retrieved 6 July 2005.
If you have a dispute and can not work it out, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your being given warnings may cause problems with your credibility to some people btw; written in the software used for vandalism control. Always leave an wp:edit summary explaining your reasoning for your edit; this helps considerably. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that the additional scrutiny of flagged editors goes away in a few days or less... I was trying to locate information on usurping an article for changing to a different context, but haven't found anything. Lots on usurping a user name. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tentinator. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Union Jack (newspaper) because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Tentinator 21:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tentinator 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to create a new article for a different newspaper named Union Jack, do so. Do not obliterate or deface this newspaper's Wikipedia article.

Disambiguated

Jeff,

As there are now two newspapers going on here, the solution is to have two different and separate Wikipedia pages. Accordingly, there is now a page entitled Union Jack (American newspaper) and a page entitled Union Jack (Canadian newspaper). Union Jack (newspaper) is a disambiguation page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]