As edited by ClueBot III talk | contributions on 17 01 2020
1.35.0-wmf.15 (febca94)
This is Dreamy Jazz's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Dreamy Jazz.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Swarup Solanki re create requestEdit

Can we create article (Swarup Solanki) we have reliable sources references and public record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.238.36 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia has a policy against editing for other blocked or banned users. By the way you write your message above, it seems that you are editing for or with Swarup Kumar Solanki. They are blocked and so editing on their behalf may get you blocked. You can read our policy on editing for blocked or banned users here.
In regards to your request, it will be helpful to have the sources you talk about. If you want to, you could list them here on my talk page. This will allow me and other editors to determine if he is now notable.
If you have any questions please ask. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there IS definitely a "war" going on here!Edit

The "war" is between a new contributor here (i.e., me) and various "editors" who seem quite determined to keep censoring the material he's trying to add to make the Johann Bessler topic less incomplete, less misleading, and less out of date! And, I fully expect it will be MY editing "privilege" which will be the one that will be revoked rather than those of some of the entrenched "editors" here who think they are somehow preserving the "integrity" of Wikipedia articles through their actions. Nothing could be further from the truth, imo! Over the past few months, I have made multiple attempts to make my added material acceptable here and only been rewarded by having it promptly deleted by "editors" who are NOT COMPETENT to sit in judgement of it and probably do not even bother to read it! Imo, it is THEY who should be having their "editing", actually censoring, "privileges" permanently revoked here before they get a chance to damage any other contributions to this "free" encyclopedia.

So, I again ask whoever reads this to tell me EXACTLY what am I supposed to do to keep my two paragraph submission to the Johann Bessler topic from being repeatedly deleted? Have any of the other "editors" here made any minor changes to the material for me to make that so? If they have, then I certainly haven't noticed it. One would think that, since they are supposedly "editors", they wouldn't hesitate to do that for me or any contributor here who is less familiar with the process than are they. If, however, they are expecting ME to do it all, then please be SPECIFIC as to what needs to be done and I will try to make the necessary changes. I take the history and inventions of Johann Bessler VERY seriously and I don't want to see interest in him unnecessarily hindered by "editors" here who, basically, know next to nothing about him and his inventions even though, I am quite sure, they think they "know it all" based on the watered down histories they have read about him online. Trust me, they DON'T. They have not even scratched the surface of the subject while I have probed it at its deepest level and, perhaps, even deeper than anyone else in the last three centuries.

As far as that "conflict of interest" matter is concerned, I consider that term being applied to me as total nonsense. It can be all too easily applied to ANY contributor who has ANY familiarity with a topic. I see it as really being a convenient means to get rid of any material that some entrenched and biased "editor" here finds not to his liking because it does not happen to agree with his particular preconceived "understanding" of a subject based on his "knowledge" of the subject.

So, there we have it. In the absence of SPECIFIC instructions on how to make my two submitted paragraphs to the Johann Bessler topic safe from future deletions, I will be forced to keep reloading them until they are finally left alone or until I no longer can do so at which point I will delete my account here if possible. I will not ask for removal of anything I've written so far on these "talk" pages because they can then serve to warn other potential contributors of the harassment they will face here as I did. Hopefully, that will motivate them to consider placing their material SOMEWHERE ELSE on the web!

Ken Behrendt Sunday, January 5th, 2020

Ken Behrendt (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ken Behrendt, to answer:
  1. The best way to keep your text in the article is to talk to other editors about it (as you have done, but more communication and a decision on the addition will help. Discussion at the noticeboard is probably the best place). Also, because the current version you are adding does not reference any sources (bar the YouTube videos), finding a reliable source to support the information will mean it is more likely to be kept in the article.
  2. By continuing to add the text back to the article without the appropriate changes and some kind of consensus, it will likely be reverted and you would be likley subsequently blocked for edit warring.
  3. The main reason editors are saying you have a conflict of interest is that you have written a book on the subject, and your edits talk about your book. Although you don't necessarily have a conflict of interest about him generally, your book and your discoveries are connected to you.
  4. You cannot delete a Wikipedia account, as this is to ensure proper attribution for edits you make. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 00:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you even READING my contributions that you're so quick to delete???Edit

Ken Behrendt (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)You recently wrote:

"Ken Behrendt, to answer:

....The main reason editors are saying you have a conflict of interest is that you have written a book on the subject, and your edits talk about your book. Although you don't necessarily have a conflict of interest about him generally, your book and your discoveries are connected to."

You seem COMPLETELY unaware that I removed ALL mention of my book in my two paragraph contribution to Johann Bessler topic MONTHS ago! All I'm talking about in my contribution is an historical event that happened with was the rediscovery of the secret mechanics of Bessler's wheels. The fact that it led to a book documenting it is, imo, completely irrelevant as a reason to keep censoring via deletion my added material to the Johann Bessler topic.


Ken Behrendt Monday, January 6th, 2020

Ken Behrendt (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ken Behrendt, although the recent addition does not explicitly mention your book, the original source you used was your book and the second paragraph talks about what you wrote in your book (i.e. the according to Behrendt part). My point was on all your additions and their variations, not necessarily on your recent edits. The book itself is not the only reason, and doesn't get necessarily discounted if an editor changes the edit to not include it. Conflict of interest is about the editor and not the content. Conflict of interest is not a reflection on the person's motives or opinions, but is if a person is externally connected to a topic. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


You can relax now "Dreamy Jazz" because another editor called "Mr.Ollie" has managed to successfully convince me that the Wikipedia article on "Johann Bessler" is not really the right place for my added contribution on his "self-moving" wheels' unique mechanics at this time because that material is just too advanced and recent. Apparently, Wikipedia suffers from a sort of time lag effect which makes the latest research unsuitable for it. So be it. Although I think that is a big mistake, I don't own Wikipedia and it's their choice to make. I do, however, "own" a Youtube channel and will continue to use that to promote interest in Johann Bessler and his wheels.

I think that the charge of "Conflict of Interest" against me really boils down to how "externally connected" I, in particular, am to the topic of Johann Bessler's wheel mechanics. Well, the fact is that I am VERY externally connected to it and, if I was not, then there is no way that I would have been able to supply those two paragraphs to the "Johann Bessler" article and their links to the Youtube videos! So, I must confess to being guilty of that "sin", yet I am most PROUD to be able to say that I am!

Perhaps things will change in the future and I will then be happy to find an entire Wikipedia page devoted solely to my Bessler wheel research. I'm feeling optimistic about that possibility.

Ken Behrendt Tuesday, January 7th, 2020

Ken Behrendt (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

GreetingsEdit

  ~ Happy Holidays ~
~ better late than never! ~ hope you have a great year ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You too. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

FairWarningEdit

Hello. I created a new article for the news site, FairWarning. You declined it, because it has no sources. I resubmitted a new draft with sources and footnotes. That was almost two months ago. Can you please take another look when you get a chance?

It's a legitimate news source that has broken many important stories. Thank you.

Hillelaron (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-02Edit

21:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

deleting my draftEdit

"22:18, 10 January 2020 Dreamy Jazz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Wonderlust (organization) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.wonderlust.fi/about (TW)"

You've deleted a page marked intentionally as Draft - work in progress, I'm now collecting the necessary text and media, to assemble it in the sandbox and publish it when done. The sandbox didn't save my draft without my pressing Publish.

Is there some sandbox on wikipedia that I can use which will save my drafts and not allow people to delete my work randomly?

Now I have to start the work all over again, I intentionally only did it in the Wikipedia sandbox so I could see how the product will look like at every point, instead of copy-pasting from some external editor.

Also, I work for the organization Wonderlust, and I wrote the text on our About page. My name (same as the username I am logged in with) is on the about page as well. We do not own a copyright on that text, again, I know because I wrote it and I intentionally do not restrict its use, especially not to myself!


MariusPoenar (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

MariusPoenar, every contribution to Wikipedia needs to be licensed under a compatible license. This is either the creative commons attribution-ShareAlike Licence or public domain. Just by your username, it cannot be determined that you are who you say you are.
Everything you publish on Wikipedia can be used by anyone for any use. It can be copied, modified and reused as long as proper attribution is given. Therefore, the text you copied from the about page of the website must be able to copied, modified and reused by anyone for any purpose as long as proper attribution is given.
Text is automatically copyrighted under the [[
Berne Convention]] and so you have to release before it can be used on Wikipedia. You can follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to release your text.
Also, the draft is written promotionally regardless of the copyright issues. I will be marking it for deletion under G11. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz I have emailed permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org from the main email address of our organization, to confirm permission for using text and media from the website wonderlust.fi

Also, the draft is a draft, are you using the word Draft to mean something different than what the dictionary says it is - a preliminary version of a piece of writing?

How do you even have access to read and delete someone else's drafts? And why would you want to?

I marked the text clearly multiple times as being a work in progress with placeholder text.. Did you read what was on the page, or do you just react to some automatic script, or what is the thought process behind deleting intentionally marked placeholder text?

Oh, and you mentioned in your deletion notification that I should contact you to get my text back.

MariusPoenar (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

MariusPoenar, draft articles are publicly accessible, as well as everything else on Wikipedia. Deleted edits and pages are hidden from public view, but can still be viewed by administrators. Draft space on wikipedia is for work in progress articles. The page was deleted again by a different administrator. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz Is there some place on the Wikipedia site that allows me access to enter stuff into the visual editor without anyone else being able to see it? MariusPoenar (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

MariusPoenar, no there is not. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Every and any edit submitted to Wikipedia is public. The only exceptions are if, the edit is deleted it can only be viewed by administrators or if the edit is oversighted then it is only accessible by oversighters. There is no way for an edit to be only accessible by yourself on Wikipedia. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
One thing to note. If you don't save the edit in visual editor, then it won't be accessible. You could copy out the content from the visual editor when you want to leave the page and then copy it back into the visual editor when you want to continue to make changes. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz
"One thing to note. If you don't save the edit in visual editor, then it won't be accessible. You could copy out the content from the visual editor when you want to leave the page and then copy it back into the visual editor when you want to continue to make changes."
That's literally the first helpful thing anyone has said to me in over 48 hours of abusive deletion and ban threats for copyright violation notices, promotional content notices, and assorted reasons, starting from user Diannaa who still hasn't deigned to engage in communication.
I thought wikipedia had guidelines like "Assume good faith" and "Don't bite the newbies". Is it always so aggressive here? MariusPoenar (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
MariusPoenar, the reason why certain users have been so quick to deletion and ban threats is that copyright is a serious thing. It could leave Wikipedia liable to lawsuits over copyright infringement. Usually editors are more relaxed over different issues. If you have any questions please feel free to ask. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-03Edit

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)