User talk:Alex jamieson

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

COIN thread
Please comment at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thank you. -- JN 466  02:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted contributions and warning
I have deleted your user sandbox and some of your recent contributions to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. The sandbox and those edits were deleted as inappropriate and potentially libelous. The edits violated our principles protecting living persons, against original research, and prohibiting the use of Wikipedia for agendas and axe-grinding. Any restoration of the deleted material or further such actions will result in an immediate block. Please reconsider your approach and intentions here. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page or utilize the "e-mail this user" link in the sidebar when viewing my page. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, I have to say that your deletion of my recent contributions did appear - at least to my mind – a somewhat kneejerk reaction to what was a serious factual addition to the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article. I was certainly unaware at the time that my contributions were infringing any rules. I do of course realize that certain policies need to be adhered to, and that as a newbie to Wikipedia I may not be aware of all the policies, but would it not have been more helpful to proffer editorial advice on how my recent contributions could have been improved, rather than issuing a stark warning as if I were deliberately intent on committing some disgraceful crime? The deleted additional section “Criticism”, along with the relevant notes, was an honest attempt to balance the article by providing verifiable information on Shepherd’s major critic. That critic, a recognized apologist for the Sathya Sai Baba sect, is conspicuously visible on the Web due to a number of transparently extremist and hostile web sites targeted at ex-devotees. Shepherd is not an ex-devotee of the Sathya Sai Baba sect, but as mentioned in the deleted contributions had included three appendices (totalling 30 pages in an annotated work of 320 pages) in a book published in 2005 that made reference to the concerns of ex-devotees. To the Internet critic’s mind that apparently justifies a campaign to discredit Shepherd; and with over twenty entries showing on the first eight pages of Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Google name list in November 2009 this is clearly an extremist sectarian reaction by any form of reckoning. The Internet critic’s former controversial association with Wikipedia through the page on Sathya Sai Baba is a known fact, and indeed eventually led to a ban. Unfortunately there is a Wikipedia User page for that person (User:SSS108/Kevin Shepherd) still currently and prominently linked to Shepherd on the Web through Google, and yet without any reference displayed that the user was in fact banned. Let me be clear, that User page originated as “axe-grinding” exercise against Robert C. Priddy (an ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba mentioned in Shepherd’s book), as became well known, and developed as a duel between the critical user and a Wiki editor known as Andries. In an attempt to snub Priddy, the critical user had removed an editorial quote about Shepherd (which Priddy had used as a reference) and stigmatised his book. Please note that Shepherd was at the time oblivious of all this and had nothing to do with the bickering. I personally feel that the Wikipedia User page in question should be removed as it is being inappropriately employed as part of an on-going “axe-grinding” activity against Shepherd, and thus draws the name of Wikipedia into disrepute.

If you have any constructive suggestions on how I can re-incorporate the deleted contributions in a manner that would conform to Wikipedia policy, I would be most grateful. Also, advice would be appreciated on how to resolve the issue of an edit by redletternight on the Sheriar Mundegar Irani discussion page re the removal of a reference to Shepherd’s annotated book From Oppression to Freedom: A Study of the Kaivani Gnostics (Cambridge, 1988). This book (as with Shepherd’s other books) is not “original research” in the Wikipedia sense, but employs diverse source materials from noted specialist scholars. The editor’s decision was evidently influenced. Alex jamieson (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem about the deleted material is that it was insufficiently sourced and contained negative assertions about a living person. I do not think the material can be reincorporated into the article without violating several Wikipedia principles. I know it can be confusing, but there are three main points that will help clarify the problem. First, Wikipedia articles should not use Wikipedia itself as a reference in any way. Second, self-published sources such as blogs should not be used unless written by a recognized expert and should never be used for negative or questionable information about a living person. Third, material added to Wikipedia articles should never be composed of a Wikipedia editor's personal observations or opinions, no matter how correct or factual they may seem. For these points, please review Verifiability and Reliable sources. (WP:SPS is the specific portion about blogs and similar sources.) They help explain what kinds of sources we should use. You may also wish to take a good look over No original research, which is the natural consequence of those two policies. Biographies of living persons help explain the care we should take when writing about living persons. What Wikipedia is not is a good overview of what is generally against the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Neutral point of view is a fundamental, and non-negotiable, principle underlying the project. It is not about creating some neutral position, but rather about editorial neutrality. We, as editors, should be neutral and only report what the body of reliable sources states about a topic. If a reputable reference does not make note of an issue or if only a tiny minority of available sources addresses a point of a topic, we should not cover it in Wikipedia.
 * On the other article, I will post a message at the reliable sources noticeboard to ask for some outside opinions from editors who deal with reliability issues. They should provide some feedback about Shepard's books and publisher(s) for you.
 * If I can be of help in explaining anything further, getting you additional assistance, or in providing advice, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For your reference, the reliable sources noticeboard thread: RSN. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kevin R. D. Shepherd
I have nominated Kevin R. D. Shepherd, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Kevinrdshepherd.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kevinrdshepherd.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)