User talk:JMNP

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! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi! I would suggest that if you have an issue with the article, that you not put your complaint directly in the article, but try posting it at the article's talk page, where discussion of the article is usually held. Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Campo. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Campo, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jarkeld (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

UMM...what is your evidence that what I wrote is inaccurate? Or do you not have any verifiable evidence and your actions are merely based upon what you heard or were told? JMNP (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)JMNP
 * It works other way around - when you add information, especially controversial, you are required to provide verifiable and reliable sources with it. Materialscientist (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

CONTROVERSIAL? What was is controversial regarding my listing? There are facts Randy Campo was born in 1952 and was killed in 1992. He was the brother of Jeanne Campo Potamkin and was the uncle of Jamin Potamkin. There is a Randy Campo Lectureship at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, the most recent taking place Thursday 17 June 2010. The Randy V. Campo Lecture from June 2008 is on the Bascom Palmer intenet site. You can hear what other unrelated doctors say regarding Randy there. The first Randy Campo Lecture, which I attended was not videotaped, but I was there and heard the speaker state, "Randy was the Michael Jordan of Retina surgeons." Randy's colleagues honor him with an AMA credited lecture, guess if the AMA considers it worth a credit toward a medical degree to learn about Randy Campo by attending the RVC Lecture, Wikipedia should (or wikipedia's loyal vandals) allow the information to be on its site. Crap it may be controversial to state that President Kennedy was killed in an automobile accident, it is true Kennedy was killed in an automobile, now the controversy may surround that a gunmen or gunmen also had some invovlment in the death of Kennedy, so should we remove reference to the facts and just state that "Kennedy was killed in a car" on the Wikipedia site? I just can't believe that Randy Campo from the grave is stirring up this CONTROVERSY! JMNP (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)JMNP

A note
Please understand that your edits are being reverted simply because they are adding potentially libelous information, which is not supported by reliable sources, into wrong place. Adding your personal details is not helping, but only creates further problems. As you are on the verge of being blocked from editing, it is strongly advised that you stop editing the mainframe article in question (Campo) and engage into a calm and civil dialogue. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * none of the people making the deletions or changes ever contacted me and asked for verification. but as long as the group of them all agree that what i wrote is not factual based on the fact that it is the groups belief, guess the group will keep changing, deleting, altering factual verifiable information and as long as the group of vandals keeps telling themselves "we're right...we're improving wikipedia!"; i mean how can i argue with people who know they are right based solely on immaterial belief JMNP (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)JMNP
 * Please understand that wikipedia is not about truth but about notable information which is supported by reliable, secondary sources. It is an encyclopedia, you can't just post a statement here and say "its true, go verify it". Materialscientist (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

please understand that i prefer my notable information, i mean...especially the notable information i get to be the truth. huh...wikipedia "is not about the truth"...schit u really did write that! cool, now i know from your statement and the fact that i have posted factual things on wikipedia...but, there are obviously many people that prefer their facts fabricated and altered and that MUST be why they use wikipedia and/or become a wikipedia administrator...cuz like they say...those that can't be retina vitreous surgeons are teachers or wikipedia administrators! keep up the good work and maybe someday there will be a verified listing on wikipedia that you, yes wonderful special kind decent intelligent you...were the MICHAEL JORDAN of wikipedia administrators. if wikipedia does not want factual verifiable information regarding remarkable things, people, etc. then wikipedia won't be gifted with such information JMNP (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)JMNP
 * Eh, you keep talking about facts, but haven't provided any. So that all remains, talking .. bye .. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

i will also say right here right now: I jamin Potamkin on 31 July 2010 remember my uncles Randy and Ricky. They were loved by me and I received vast love and knowledge in the short time I had with them. They were both remarkable humble kind and generous and their gift and light was unjustly and wrongfully extinguished. They will always be remembered and loved by their family. That ain't even close to what you get from Cathy Kent or her threats. The fact that wikipedia has nothing on it regarding Randy Campo and the remarkable scholarly writings of his is testement to my belief regarding wikipedia. I will review the Achives of Ophthalmology, JAMA, et al. REAL NOTABLE publications, when I want re-affirmation. Of course I could have easily plagiarized my uncles obituary from one of those "real" publications, the kind where they publish the truth and it's notable for being notable not just being true, but, I decided to be kind and share more information than was ever publicly allowed before. but enough with this and these trivialities like murder, science, when we can continue to have our facts manufactured just like we like and/or need...RIGHT  ; )   (you really don't need to respond as I highly doubt whatever you or wikipedia will gat back to me with will remotely move me the way my uncles wisdom did. IN OTHER WORDS...HAVE A NICE LIFE   JMNP (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)JMNP

OH YEAH! PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO MAKE A GENEROUS DONATION/CONTRIBUTION to the RANDY V. CAMPO LECTURESHIP FUND at the UNIVERSITY of MIAMI, MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, BASCOM PALMER EYE INSTITUTE. Thanks JMNP (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)JMNP
 * Hi. I'm sure we're all sorry about your family tragedy, but what Materialscientist is telling you about the requirements for a Wikipedia entry is correct. You can't just add information to Wikipedia solely because it is true - it must also be notable (see WP:N), and attested to by reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). So while there are many true things about many people, they don't all get get included in an encyclopedia. For example, there are many true things about me, but I don't get a Wikipedia entry - not because the facts about my life are not true, but because I am not notable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jarkeld (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Killiondude (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)