User talk:Faber Optimé

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.


 * This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:
 * Add  This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Changing username.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text  or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Your chosen username is clearly promotional, and hence not allowed in wikipedia. Please choose another. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to let this one stay. I could easily be in the same situation. I don't own jpgordon.com, but if I did, would my ownership of it disallow my using jpgordon as my user name? Or, alternately, would it be a bad thing if I started up jpgordon.com myself? Assuming, of course, I didn't go about promoting the website on Wikipedia? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise inclined. I don't see any promotional edits by this user.— Ѕandahl 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to ALL the admins who've given their time on this one. It is extremely encouraging to see such diligence and quality standards amply in evidence. Faber Optimé (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings... Hello, Faber Optimé, and  welcome to Wikipedia! 
 * To get started, click on the green welcome.
 * I hope you like it here and decide to stay! Happy editing!  Ѕandahl  01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandah1 - thank you for your welcome greetings! Having used Wikipedia as a respected source for some time, I'm pleased to be able to contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve and enhance it. :) With kind regards.
 * You are welcome.We are glad to have you:) — Ѕandahl 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

With a little further knowledge, just tried to rewrite my user page in recommended style. Have enjoyed looking at some of the existing user profiles - jpgordon inspriring! :) I hope I may be able to render at least some pale equivalent(!) at some future juncture! Alas time does not permit this at present. :( But I do hope my "placeholder article" will minimally serve for the time being until. Please do advise/correct if "References" title should better put as "External Links". Thanks all!

Spam
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. - gadfium 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium, I spent some time today adding external links to a variety of very specific articles. The links I added are NOT spam. Each contains relevant, rich content which is most definately pertinent to the articles where added. I appreciate and endorse your honourable intention to keep Wikipedia spam free. However if I've added something inappropriate, please could you cite specific example(s) so I can deal with it appropriately? Many thanks. Faber Optimé (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be promoting your own website. This is inappropriate per WP:External links.- gadfium 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gadfium, I'm sorry but you appear not to have actually looked at any of the links I provided! NONE link to my own web site!! ALL link to reliable pages containing content relevant to the page(s) where cited. Indeed in some instances the pages I tried to link to provide a great deal more quality information than can be obtained in respective stub articles. I had intentions of revisiting these pages in due course to add in what I can to their content, however you will appreciate that this demands time and that is at a premium for me! So I did what I could. I should perhaps expand a little to say that I pride myself on producing high-quality, original work. When you take a look at the links in question, you will see that their content does indeed fall within guidelines. As the original author of the materials linked to, I thought it also pertinent to cite my Wikipedia user name in the link. Please could you advise further or roll back your changes Gadfium. You will appreciate that to a contributor less experienced than yourself such as I, having a couple of hours worth of work written off is moments with no qualitative examination is frustrating to say the least! Faber Optimé (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said "your own work".- gadfium 02:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect Gadfium, that is irrelevant. Unless there's some unwritten rule that subject matter experts are precluded from contributing in their own fields of expertise...?! I return to the the external links guideline and spam guideline. Nothing therein excludes referring to one's own original work. I'm not seeking to promote any commercial ends, sell anything nor contribute for the purposes of personal promotion (FYI I work as a business analyst, something neither relevant nor referred to in any of the materials I linked to). I make no direct or indirect gain from creating any of the resources I linked to - I do it simply for the love of it! I believe that each of the items I linked to stands in its own right as a valuable/useful, relevant resource about the respective subject. Please editorially review your actions against these more meaningful criteria and the guidelines rather than wrongly presuming me to be some kind of spammer and fettering my efforts accordingly. Whilst I respect and endorse a strong editorial policy against spam (and I recognise and accept that my batch of edits today, without detailed examination, could be perceived as possibly representing such), I do not believe that that justifies blanket actions nor precludes proper, meaningful consideration. I should note that many elsewhere consider my work authoritative - being thoroughly researched and well written. Moreover I believe that were you to actually examine the materials I proposed to link to you might recognise the valuable contribution my efforts here could avail - adding to the value of this common effort. If you're unwilling/unable to execute a qualitative review of my actual contributions, please advise as to whom I should otherwise pursue this. I'm sure the editorial intent is right but given the CONTENT in question, continue to question as to whether it has been correctly executed in this instance. Faber Optimé (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.- gadfium 06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, given the quality of discourse you've had from me, I consider your terse responses to be both ignorant and insulting. You have failed to provide any qualitative review or reasonable justification for the actions you've taken nor cite any specific transgression. I am not satisfied with your editorial conduct in this matter. I do not belive you are doing Wikipedia any service by this. Please advise as to whom I should refer your actions for objective review. Faber Optimé (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if it was you or Gadfium who added this to Third Opinion, but that probably is not the proper place for this to be addressed: that forum is more oriented toward deadlocks on article edits. That said, I think from reading through the posts so far is that Gadfium is concerned that the links you are providing are, if not self promotional, at least original research, which you appear to acknowledge in your comments above. ("I should perhaps expand a little to say that I pride myself on producing high-quality, original work. ... As the original author of the materials linked to...") This would violate the established policy No_original_research, which requires reputable sources. In most cases, a web page will not meet this requirements. --Interestingly average (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wah, sorry IA, missed replying to your comments - appreciated. To clarify, whilst I've originated some materials, these barely qualify as "original research", being comprised of simple observation (in the cases of video content) and facts obtained from authoritative sources in the case of textual content. To the best of my knowledge I've not proposed any new theory or notion, nor do my works conflict with established, accepted facts. I rather feel like I'm being given reason after reason for rejection with no one actually looking at the stuff in question - when I have to repeatedly explain here at length to knock the bottom out of one fallacious argument given, another is raised to continue the stonewall, with absolutely no reference to the facts of the matter in and amongst given. Please could you actually look at the pertinent stuff before passing any further comment. Some specific references to particulars at issue and relevant guidance as to what/how guidelines are not being appropriately followed would be a great deal more helpful than pulling another meaningless, irrelevant sideline out of the hat. Faber Optimé (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
Your additions of your YouTube video are both a violation of WP:COI and WP:LINKSPAM. It's your own video, and you're promoting it in inappropriate channels. Don't add links to every single article that you think might be linked to the video. Like everyone said, you can take it WP:COIN if you really want. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To add to this - personally, I think the videos are of very limited use and interest, but I can see others might disagree. Fair enough; it's the sort of thing we decide case-by-case basis, and I wouldn't want to intervene in articles I've never touched before
 * The more pressing problem is the attribution in the link. A direct link to a Wikipedia userpage, and prominent use of the name of a youtube video author, really doesn't seem appropriate for a simple external link in an article. This is, I suspect, the reason people are so uncomfortable with your desire to add links to external content; it sails far too close to inappropriate self-promotion, even if unintentional. I hope you can see why this gets people's backs up!
 * As I say, the videos could stand or fall on their own merits, but if this discussion is ever going to get beyond a stalemate it really needs to be decoupled from the issue of including your name in the links. I won't promise it will be included then, but it's less likely to be immediately rejected. Shimgray | talk | 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Shimgray, Just noticed your edit when concluding comment addition last below (prior to submitting). I feel a breath of fresh air in hearing something of qualitative content! Irrespective, it is a great thing you did to provide me with a least some semblance of human concern, consideration and ambition to do the best for Wikipedia. Your address of specifics is very much appreciated indeed. I felt like a fish on the beach a floundering for lack of any direct issue raised to address and resolve. Thank you for trying well to bring the actual content back into focus and find a progressive course to productive resolution. I'm sure such will avail a good result for all. If nothing else it is good to know that there's folk such as yourself actually examining issues so that the best result occurs. Onto the particulars you noted. You seem to be a constructive fellow! Despite my own personal sentiment as to the value of attribution, I am prepared to simply remove all attributions in proposed link inclusions if that will enable editors to properly consider actual content against interests of the respective articles. I'd appreciate any/all guidance you could offer as to how best to progress this forward. Faber Optimé (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed there's a variety of depths to the films I sought to include. I guess at one end of the spectrum, my "Northland Secrets Early Rizers Mix" film would represent at the least, in that it covers quite a lot of ground quite rapidly, hence individual topics are only represented in part. For example, the vid includes a bit of vid of Maoris singing at Te Matua Ngahere in and amongst other Northland attractions, so when I included it on the Te Matua Ngahere page, it could well be perceived to be of questionable relevance. At the other end of the spectrum, the vids about, say, Auckland Harbour Bridge or Auckland Zoo are hugely relevant and provide a great deal of rich content, I'm sure valuable to readers of respective articles. All that said, I filtered my films for relevance prior to making any postings (a good deal of my films not appearing in any references at all) and I did act in good faith in believing that all the inclusions I made were relevant and appropriate to where I made them.
 * I acknowledge your point as to what may have inspired such negativity with regard to the attribution I included in the links. You correctly identify a fundamental issue I grappled with (and maybe/may well have fumbled!!). As an academic I recognise the importance of citing sources. As the creator of these works, how should I address this? Since no one has yet written a page about me(!), I thought the best I could do would be to simply link to my Wikipedia profile. If someone wanted to pursue materials' author, they then had the means to expeditiously do so and indeed I would not have to include any external link to my own site or anything else in articles. I concede perhaps I was misguided in thinking this would be a helpful thing to do - it's clearly proved to be very counter-productive!
 * Taking your example of the Auckland Zoo video that you linked to, how does that meet the requirements of the no original research policy? It is essentially an eyewitness account of the zoo - it is a primary source which lacks notability. The only way I could see this video possibly being included would be if the zoo used it as promotional material, which might give it the necessary notability. Even then, what does the video actually add to the article? The article already lists the exhibits at the zoo, and even includes a photo gallery. --Interestingly average (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing contributions IA. There is of course a distinction between original work and original research. From the policy itself: Faber Optimé (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "... This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." - Reading the page I posted the link to and watching the video, I see no evidence of a particular opinion being originated or advanced. Also my contributions both here and in the film were deliberately presented in neutral tone.
 * "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." - I belive the linked article is directly relevant. Moreover from a quality source. Citation is an issue here (as Shimgray alluded to above) - there was I thinking that accurate attribution was a good thing, apparently not in practical terms being amply remonstrated here!
 * You correctly identify it as a primary source. In my academic experience, these are the most valuable sources, not the least. Indeed I identify this as a reason to commend inclusion, certainly not as a reason to prohibit.
 * "Lacks notability" - in your opinion! Over 1,500 viewers seems to provide some evidence to the contrary? Were you to do a little research (e.g. try google searching for my name) and you might find that that preconception about this author is less than accurate.
 * "The only way I could see this video possibly being included would be if the zoo used it as promotional material, which might give it the necessary notability." Say what?! Are you saying that only the owners or something can provide Wikipedia with content of due "notability"? I question the objectivity of that method sir! It's also worth noting that this standard is not met in a significant proportion of established external links (video or otherwise) throughout Wikipedia.
 * What does it add to the article? An opportunity for users to see some of the animals in action in their Zoo habitats? An accurate record of first-hand observations? Video is a potentially useful resource distinct from text/pictures you know. One good example - it includes film of the three recently born Sumatran Tiger cubs shortly after birth. Is not that historic record both relevant, appropriate and arguably a valuable resource? Is it not perfect grist to historians' mill? But of course, that's just my opinion. In the spirit of divorcing fact from opinion, I believe the video record stands in its own right as a primary source of evidence and I believed that Wikipedia users should have the opportunity to see and consider it for themselves.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Doh. Defective bot. Been doing that. Error error. Faber Optimé (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI conflict of interest guideline
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, 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; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. — Athaenara ✉  11:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Athaenara,
 * Thanks for that.
 * I must say that I have no personal or commercial interest represented in any of the contributions made. Please could you elaborate as to specifically which of the contributions that I made infringes any guideline and what would be the appropriate course to resolution?
 * I remain confident that any investigation into specifics would vindicate the respective reference.
 * Thanks.
 * Faber Optimé (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, I have just reread the Conflict of Interest guidelines and wish to say:
 * I do not represent any organisation, commercial or otherwise, I am merely another individual here! Educated and informed maybe, but still, just a guy. Am I not exactly the sort of contributor you should be seeking? Frankly the responses I've encounted here strike less of that and far more of management approaches fit for dealing with contemporary technical issues (e.g. methods of spammers) rather than qualitative appraisal of complex materials.
 * The changes I made do not represent any furtherance of any interest excepting those of Wikipedia, as generally stated.
 * The specific inclusions made I believe to be of reliable, quality sources of information, of relevance and benefit to users. I have neither sought to promote anything irrelevant or inappropriate, nor sought to further any goals not explicit in Wikipedia stated aims.
 * I remain of the view that any investigation into the specifics of the contributions made vindicate the preceding.
 * I look forward to your specific feedback Athaenara. Rest assured I continue to respect the editorial aims of Wikipedia, despite my manifest actions provoking understandable, alternative reactions.
 * I hope you can aid in some satisfactory outcome of nett benefit to Wikipedia users, one and all.
 * Please do come back on specifics. Of course, however apparently fitting a generalisation may be, I'm sure you appreciate that clear understanding of particulars can tell a different tale.
 * Faber Optimé (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm failing to see how independently witnessing a thing (of no personal or commercial relevance), researching and presenting elsewhere equates to a conflict of interest when making a relevant inclusion here. I have not presented anything of bias nor commended any product, service or view.
 * Is there some issue regarding the presentation of the links of which I've not yet been made aware?
 * Faber Optimé (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is disingenuous to suppose that posting links to your videos and/or your website does not reflect your conflict of interest and that you don't see how the COI guideline applies to you. It does.  (See also: User page)


 * If you seek further input about these issues, you may post for example on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. — Athaenara  ✉  13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Athaenara, Good gracious me! Do any Wikipedia editors actually look at the materials they're editing before making judgements offhand?! Have you looked at a single one of the external references I sought to include? Your commentary thus far strikes me apparently not. I have yet to hear any specific issue with any specific change I made other than stereotypical preconception divorced from anything I'm seeking to achieve. I implore you, please try and think for a moment outside your preconceptions. Is it asking too much to ask you to actually look at what I'm proposing to include? If so please let me know as to whom/where this can be obtained. I cannot bring myself to believe that Wikipedia editorial policy is to be pursued devoid of any reference to the factual content of issues under consideration. I find battling against blind stereotyped preconceptions painfully unproductive. I had hoped some actual, editorial review would avail some progress. Please endeavour not to disappoint. Faber Optimé (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not concerning any user page.
 * I have not sought to promote anything other than quality information of relevance to page viewers on specific subjects of which I have knowledge. With the greatest of respect, unless you have had access to all the first-hand sources I have had in the making these materials, you are in a poor position to challenge its credibility. Moreover I have yet to hear ANY substantive comment about (the credibilty of) ANY of the content I sought to include a link to. I remain of the view that qualitative analysis would vindicate my actions.
 * I have not included ANY link to my web site. This topic was covered (above) over a year ago and successfully resolved. Refer to the preceding conversations above for details. I did include a link to my Wikipedia User Page (as the material's author). Is this attribution inappropriate? It struck me as merely accurate and helpful.
 * "Your conflict of interest"? Specifically what?
 * Whilst I made the videos in some of the links, my doing so is representing no commercial or personal interest whatsoever. Were you to compare these videos to the product of an unfunded, independent television journalist, you would be closely accurate. Again, whilst I appreciate we're swimming in murky waters here, I remain strongly of the view that any qualitative appraisal of specific materials in question would vindicate my views expressed here.

I am extremely disappointed that thus far no one seems to give a hoot about the actual material under consideration here. Is there any Wikipedia editor prepared to actually look at contributions rather than just shoot from the hip? I do NOT feel welcomed or that other contributors here presume (as I am) my actions to be in good faith. In fact, I feel my efforts entirely wasted. What I thought would be a good couple of hours work contributing quality information to enhance this resource have resulted in a day's frustration arguing against blind stereotyped oput of hand judgement. Athaenara, Interestingly Average, Annyong - please look at what you're judging before you judge it. Faber Optimé (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gadfium: "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." Your words above. Despite doing as you suggested, I am disheartened that you took the conversation here out onto the article talk pages. I resent your publically labelling me a spammer. Apparently it's a crime here to be a prolific author/contributor as all one's work gets simply labelled out of hand as spam. Judging by Wikipedia as is, had I "drip fed" yesterday's batch of changes out over time as/when the materials were originally produced, I very much doubt that any of it would have raised an eyebrow, indeed I continue to believe that these changes would be of value. Since I have not sought to promote anything other than pertinent, quality information, I rather feel I deserve an apology! In good faith I did as you suggested, thinking that editors with some actual interest in the page would review the suggested contributions and provide a view accordingly. I do not believe that your contributions on article pages demonstrate any actual, editorial examination of the materials I sought to provide a link to nor good faith on your part. With an abject lack of neutrality or objectivity on your part, I feel that you are doing a disservice to me and the Wikipedia community in general. Once again, seeking to return focus to the key issue, I believe that qualitative appraisal of the materials vindicates my attempting their inclusion. I can only apologise to myself and the world for having gone about it in such an apparently counter-productive manner. Nonetheless, in good faith I continue to seek the most positive outcome for the project we're all supposedly working for. Faber Optimé (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)