User talk:AmyStephen

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. El Mariachi (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia (again). Concerning your edits on the Joomla page, please find factual material which you have been reverting here:
 * http://www.krsaborio.net/research/2000s/05/0823_a.htm - Instances of conflict of interest towards commercialisation has happened in the Core Team ad nausem

and here:


 * http://source.mambo-foundation.org/content/view/22/39/ - JEM Report repost : "Because of this, JamboWorks is commited [sic] to supporting the Joomla! project." and "Lamont didn't trust Eddie or Teeman, or their friends; he had seen evidence that suggested they were planning to wrest control of the project for their own commercial purposes".

This historical record shows that there were claims that both the Core Team and Mambo had not told the entire story. Your edits thus far are encroaching on the 3 revert rule for any new user to Wiki as you have removed factual information and placed other, non-factual material in its place. Whilst your edits may have been done in good faith, the lack of referencing and attributable history to the Joomla project is what is concerning me. I suggest you look at the WP:5 pillars of Wikipedia in order to write a great article. Please feel free to discuss your edits on the Talk:Joomla! page prior to posting them. El Mariachi (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Elamic - I am not certain this is how to respond to you - I hope it is!

Those quotes you are sharing were *not* in the Joomla! article and I did not remove them. As we go through this process, I ask that you not generalize my actions and I will work hard to be specific and fact based.

I am interested in seeing a neutral point of view presented in that article. I believe you are looking for the same so I do not expect we will have any trouble. Currently, there is a slanted point of view in the article that is both negative and without substantiation.

I did break down the updates and commented on each piece. Hopefully, that is a better process.

Thanks for your feedback and for your help. It is MUCH appreciated!


 * From the edits you have done, you removed the factual, attributable record that the name was chosen prior to the announcement by a marketing team outside the Core and that the name was chosen prior to getting legal trademarks (i.e. the day of the announcement, 1 Sep 2005). This evidence remains substantiated and factual, as the edits held correct citation as per the Wiki Manual of Style.
 * So, in order to document the factual historical record, we must first look at the time line. This is what can be ascertained as factual information thus far. Peter Lamont of Miro Pty Ltd held discussions with the Mambo Steering Committee to help create a Foundation as per the letter signed by the Core Team. During this time, a name was chosen by an external marketing organisation, which then was submitted to legal trademarks in Australia, prior to the announcement to the wider open source community of that name. Because of this time line, this lends significant, citatable, attributable weight to the statement "rumours of wrongdoing" regarding Miro itself and the Mambo Steering Committee and Jamboworks at that stage. In other words, there was already significant weight and documentary evidence that the Core Team was engaging in actions which blurred potential conflicts of interest in order to create the Foundation in the first place. All of this is based on citable references from within the Joomla infrastructure and related citable historical records elsewhere.
 * Since Wiki is aimed at NPOV, I feel your comments that these citable references remain negative and without substantiated to be based on your own original research. If you have citable reference to counter the historical paper trail I've documented above, please share so we can create the most NPOV view of Joomla as possible. El Mariachi (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Elamic -

1. This is the link I removed that you seem to think proves your points - please read it closely: New Project Name Chosen. In that link, rhuk announced on Aug 30, 2005, that those who had Mambo domain names could fill out a form in order to be provided the new name on Aug 31, 2005, which was one day earlier than the Sep 1, 2005 announcement given to the general public. I have no problem returning that link with the explanation I just provided. That explanation is substantiated by the quote.

2. This statement that you made: "During this time, a name was chosen by an external marketing organisation, which then was submitted to legal trademarks in Australia, prior to the announcement to the wider open source community of that name." is unsubstantiated rumor. Further, it is not a NPOV. It is unsubstantiated rumors such as these that I am working to remove.

3. Truthfully, the burden is on you to substantiate your claims. You have not done so. I do not have to prove that your statements are not true. But, I can offer such evidence and hopefully, that will help settle this matter. The core team did not get the patent in Australia. An external marketing team that they hired did not get the trademark in Australia. The truth is that the trademark was purchased by a community member who goes by the handle Mixed. The discussion can be found in [http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51549&p=278507#p278507 Joomla! forums] where a "concerned" community member presented the question.

4. So, half of the conspiracy should be behind us. Now, regarding your continued statements that Jamboworks was somehow not ethical (i.e., conflict of interest), again, I ask that you substantiate those claims. The link I removed was to a page on the former website that list the names of the individuals who worked there. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, it's their "About us" page. They did not do the things they were accused of doing. I cannot see how such accusations could be justified as "history."

5. Rumors and false accusations do not make history. History makes history. If you have any evidence of your claims, present it. Otherwise, repeating false rumors and calling it history is simply continuing to spread false rumor.

6. For the record, let us note that you have not objected to any statement that I provided in the article. Everything I modified or left behind is substantiated by appropriate documentation from the historic record. Notice how your arguements do not challenge the statements in the Joomla! article. That means my efforts to find a NPOV were successful. With my edits, I accomplished what we are both looking for, an indisputable NPOV substantiated directly by indisputable historic documents.


 * [[Image:GreenPillar.svg|47px]] || Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
 * [[Image:GreenPillar.svg|47px]] || Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
 * [[Image:GreenPillar.svg|47px]] || Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
 * [[Image:GreenPillar.svg|47px]] || Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

Thank you.


 * Firstly, a crash course on intellectual property and copyright. A patent is not the same thing as a trademark, and what was removed thanks to your editing style was verifiable, citable trademark information regarding the name. Signed, dated, verifiable, historical record of the name and what it means (i.e. "all together" verses "minister"). So when the trademark says one thing and the marketing material says something different, obviously, in line with the Wiki Manual of Style, it is best to follow the legal trademark. You have since replaced verifiable content on the name and what it means with text regarding the logo. The naming process still has citable, verifiable evidence for it. Why remove such information ?


 * The name could not be determined on the same day as the announcement of the Joomla name, let alone pass trademark submission during that same day. I would like to see verifiable evidence otherwise, especially when you acknowledge that an external marketing organisation generated the name. Obviously they generated it before the announcement, and before the trademark submission, which then lends significant weight to the Core Team "rumours of wrongdoing" and the removed text that Peter Lamont has evidence to support his views of the Core Team. Occam's razor would suggest that there was a time when the name was being generated (perhaps during Linuxworld that year) during the same time as the Foundation formation process prior to the split. I guess I could approach the Mambo Foundation and see if they would be able to provide citable references as to what was done, I guess.


 * Furthermore you also removed a link whereby the Core Team (at that stage) acknowledged they used an external marketing organisation to generate that name. So obviously, in order to preserve the continuity of the historical record of Joomla, we need that link back. Why was it removed when it verifies that the name was generated outside community involvement ?


 * I have sought to raise this issue on the Talk:Joomla! page, which then helps determine consensus for this article and the way it should be written. Now I do not know if you are in any official capacity with the Joomla project, but the page has been approaching an advertising space in a number of ways. Wiki is not an advertising space or a soapbox, let alone a conspiracy. In this way, I have objected and followed the correct procedure for resolving this issue. I have done what is acceptable, professional Wiki procedure when dealing with verifiable content and the removal of such content. I raised the nature of your editing on the Talk:Joomla! page and seek to determine consensus. Therein lies the historical record of any objection. This is now the third time I have directed you to the Talk:Joomla! page as I've already suggested twice that you discuss your edits there before making 14 edits on a document in one day.
 * I would recommend you demonstrate how your edits have been made in good faith when verifiable content has been lost on the historical record of Joomla and how it got to where it is.
 * El Mariachi (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * El - I produced evidence of who purchased the trademark. You have only shown links to trademark being purchased and you have offered unverified speculation that an unnamed marketing company both selected the name and purchased the trademark. Upon this rumor, you have built a conspiracy that the core team planned this event months before. You have not offered any evidence of this, although I can see you feel as though you have. You seem concerned that I have destroyed valuable evidence, but nothing is removed in the Wikipedia, the record is still there. I responded to you here since you initiated a discussion here. I will respond to you in the Joomla! Talk page if that is your next request. Kind regards. AmyStephen (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:JoomlaAdministrator.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:JoomlaAdministrator.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. El Mariachi (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please return to the image page to inspect the license selection I elected. It identifies me as the copyright holder of the work and as one who release my work into the public domain - worldwide. That is the justification needed for fair use. Further documentation is not required.

Your welcome for sharing the picture. --> AmyStephen (talk)

I am surprised at you asking me to explain the license of the image I donated, then marking it for CSD. That is inappropriate. It is my copyright and I donated it. There is no justification for asking for the image to be removed.

Let's stay focused. AmyStephen
 * I uploaded an image under public domain, with myself as the copyright holder, using the same licence template you have utilised, and fell foul of User:BetaCommandBot due to no fair usage rationale. It is for this reason that I flagged it. Consider this a learning experience on how to use Wiki El Mariachi (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speedy deletion notice from the image since, as you noticed, the tag was incorrect. I have also warned the editor who placed the tag, since he obviously knew it was improper.  I did have to change the license tag you released it under - the Joomla software is released under the GPL, so any screenshots of the software must be released under the same license.  This is still a free license for our purposes here at Wikipedia, so it doesn't change your ability to use it in the article. If you have any questions, just drop me a note.  Shell babelfish 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the error. It was not done with any hint of malicious intent. El Mariachi (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)