Spectre7277

Welcome!

Hello, Spectre7277, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  General Eisenhower 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a text reference for that Hoffa story. I've copyedited it to follow the wiki manual of style, so if you could take a peek and let me know if I've screwed any of the information up I'd appreciate it. Syrthiss 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, I'm still learning the wikiway of entering info, so thanks for helping me with edits. The edits you made look great.Spectre7277

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Jimmy Hoffa has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jake Wartenberg^talk 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Jimmy Hoffa constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I was attempting to edit the page, no vandalism was intended. I apologize if it appeared that way.

Someone had taken out key information regarding the most recent investigations. I put that info back in. --Spectre7277 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam

I notice your repeated attempts to place links to and promotional information about a book published by Spectre Publishing, a firm with which you have a connection, on the Jimmy Hoffa article. This violates Wikipedia's spam policies which can be found at WP:SPAM. Please stop. More on this can be found at the Jimmy Hoffa talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice your repeated attempts to place links to and promotional information about a book published by Spectre Publishing, a firm with which you have a connection, on the Jimmy Hoffa article. This violates Wikipedia's spam policies which can be found at WP:SPAM. Please stop. More on this can be found at the Jimmy Hoffa talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Stephen,

The book I believe you are referring to, I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt is not a Spectre Publishing Book. I have been involved in the Hoffa investigation with Charles since June 2006. The information you have deleted is part of the continuing investigation into the case. Please email me or call me if you have any questions regarding what we found. Because of wikipedia I have been contacted by other investigators who have interest in the case. My contact info is on the website for Spectre Publishing. I will explain everything to you, then if you feel its relevant, then maybe you can add it to the page. Give me a call. Jeff --Spectre7277 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me? The Jimmy Hoffa page has been edited by Stephen J. Anderson. The information I put on there is for public use. Charles Brandt and I have been working together on this case for two years. Stephen seems to be taking that personally by saying things like "Another investigation that went nowhere." I would like to have this information I provided for the public left alone.--Spectre7277 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the bedrock foundations of Wikipedia is that information must come from reliable and verifiable independent sources, such as newspapers, magazines and books. This is a corollary to WP:NOR, which states that there is no original research allowed. I will review your edits and make sure that they comply with these policies. Please review these policies and make sure that all of the edits are in compliance with these policies, especially in an article that is a frequent target of vandalism and rumor-mongering. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Jimmy Hoffa, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. tedder (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spectre7277 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Razorflame 01:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spectre7277 constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Razorflame 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spectre7277. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Razorflame 01:19, 27 January 2009 (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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spectre7277. Razorflame 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. [1] [2] --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I'm glad to be back. Just to let you all know, I edited the Gran Torino page. The location of the movie was set as Detroit. I changed it to the correct location as Highland Park, Michigan. Just thought I'd let you guys know that so there's no misunderstandings. Please feel free to second guess my edits, even though there's really no reason for it.

I apologized for the edits to the Jimmy Hoffa page and no one bothered to discuss that with me.

I hope this can be a new start. Like I said, I will not be editing that page (Jimmy Hoffa) ever again, and for the record, I do not condone what others have done in hopes of gaining my favor. For the past four years I have been on this wikipedia site and there has never been a problem with me. I attempted to have the matter looked into by proper mediation administrators but they chose to turn a blind eye. I respect wikipedia and it's editors, but I do feel that some things are being over-edited. Please understand that I have no control over what others do and that if in the near or distant future a fan of my book or someone who has followed the Jimmy Hoffa investigation decides to edit the page, either to document what I have found, or even to discredit it, I will not have had anything to do with it.

sincerely --Spectre7277 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoffa

I honestly couldn't tell ya. I'm not that big on the whole Jimmy Hoffa thing. lol You'd have to ask someone that's worked on it more than I have. Crash Underride 19:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Use Talk:Jimmy Hoffa to get answers, or ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

User:Theboss1970

Hi. Exactly what is the relationship between you and User:Theboss1970? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

None, he or she seems to be a fan that likes my book. From what Ive read, they heard about it on Fox News Channel. --Spectre7277 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. maybe you would like to have a look at everything Ive done regarding this topic. --Spectre7277 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to stand by the assertion that there is no relationship? Please read our policies on the use of multiple accounts; one of the most destructive things to the Wikipedia community is when an editor adopts multiple usernames in order to feign consensus on article talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet investigation tedder? This is getting old. really. --Spectre7277 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To Jp, I am not related to theboss 1970.--Spectre7277 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's good to know exactly how credible you are; any checkuser will come to a different conclusion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You folks would rather have an edit war, sockpuppet investigation, back and forth squabbles, then to actually take the time to read the information provided, i.e. All of the media links, and my book itself. If this is what wikipedia is about, then good luck. I cannot control what other folks do. --Spectre7277 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But you must control what you do yourself. I've blocked your alternate account indefinitely, and you for one week for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

MY problems with Some Editors

The Wikipedia community (people who contribute to Wikipedia) is also subject to various criticisms. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices."[91] The community has also been criticized for responding to complaints regarding an article's quality by advising the complainer to fix the article themselves.[92] Professor James H. Fetzer criticized Wikipedia in that he could not change the article about himself;[93] to ensure impartiality, Wikipedia has a policy that discourages the editing of biographies by the subjects themselves except in "clear-cut cases", such as reverting vandalism or correcting out-of-date or mistaken facts.[94]

The community has been described as "cult-like,"[95][96][97] although not always with entirely negative connotations.[98] A popular joke is that Wikipedia cannot possibly work in theory, but does work in practice.[99] A larger social community also helps in maintaining a supportive atmosphere and collective etiquette, such as resolving disputes by appealing to reliable sources and Wikipedia's own policies.

Spectre7277

Hello, Spectre7277. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic.2Fsite_ban_proposal_for_user_Spectre7277--Hu12 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Warpath (novel)

The article Warpath (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT; not reviewed by any reliable source, 2 reviews on Goodreads. Does not meet any of our notability thresholds for books.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pilaz (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Warpath (novel) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warpath (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warpath (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warpath BookSurge.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warpath BookSurge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)