User talk:Jam2ja

January 2019
Hello, I'm DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Creative Commons, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. If you want to comment on other users, please use their Talk pages, not their User pages. This means that if you want to say something to me you would use my Talk page at User talk:DBaK, or, even better, continue the conversation here rather than split it. What you don't do is to edit someone's User page, such as User:DBaK, as you accidentally did, which is a bit of a taboo here. I'll address your other remarks in a minute. I'm also going to add a Welcome note with lots of useful information, and I strongly recommend that you visit the WP:TEAHOUSE (please see the invitation immediately above this section) for help and guidance on successful editing. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

my own views not welcome on wiki
You said I wrote about my own personal experience of using the creative commons license. And this user deleted it. on my user page, as noted above, and I have moved it to my Talk page but I am replying here as I'd rather keep it in one place. DBaK (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In brief, yes, that's right, your own views are not welcome on Wikipedia! Sorry!! There's a very long list of what Wikipedia is not, and it includes blogs, forums, social media and all sorts of other places where we expect to put our own views. So your comments about Creative Commons (1st try, 2nd try), whilst they are obviously heartfelt and possibly accurate and useful for all I know, are not acceptable because they are clearly personal commentary and not cited to a reliable source. Even if you yourself are a citeable published source which you can reference, you should probably not add it yourself (see WP:COI) but rather add it to the article Talk page and ask another editor to take a look. But you should always be aware that personal commentary, along with synthesis and original research, will not be accepted here.
 * I am sorry if you feel that you have got to a difficult start here but it just isn't always what we might intuitively expect when we turn up with an idea or comment. Between the Teahouse invitation above and the other links in my Welcome note, you will find a lot of really useful stuff which will help you here. Above all, I think you should visit the Teahouse which is absolutely specialized in helping new editors. If you go there and say "this bl**dy swine DBaK has removed my legitimate personal experiences" I promise you will get a helpful response. Good luck and happy editing, DBaK (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)]\

I guess i have to get the thoughts cited, and ask another to publish. Its important that people that use the license are not left up the creek without a paddle. So, according to wiki. the basis of wiki is contemporary intellectual agenda, real experience from the source has no relevance. Its an obtuse thing that happened through my view. Comments were fair and verifiable, from within the page. If you bothered to read the whole page? By editing some things on wiki and not others, you are publishing your own commentary and agenda. And also making sure that users that are not affiliated with your method of commentary leave. All i did was summarise the cited common sense already put forward. I'm not disruptive. Yet you disrupted my day. Maybe peoples personal commentary on the world is a good way for a community to understand what is going on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDPrpKDjQ5U Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Creative Commons. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Agent00x (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

It's not working
Hi. My attempts to meet you with kindness and thorough explanation do not seem to have worked. On this page you have already been given the best possible advice, and I don't know what more to say about it. Your comments about me on my own page are insulting and inaccurate, so I will just be deleting them. I would ask you not to edit my Talk or User pages further. I will only engage with you here, and only then if there seems to be any point in my doing so. If you wish to complain about me to Jimbo Wales then here is his Talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales or if you wish to make a more conventional complaint then you might need ANI which is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But if you read the introductory material at ANI then you will see all sorts of alternatives proposed first, so maybe look carefully at that as ANI is pretty much the nuclear option. In all honesty I would not advise either of these courses, as I know I have done nothing but be reasonable to you, and I can't be bothered to sustain a dispute with you, but it's your choice. Good luck with your editing. DBaK (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

response
I'm more offended that my comments about CC can't stick on CC page, than at you personally. Your doing what you have to do. Just strange for me what pages you care about and what pages you don't, as a group of editors. I met Mr Wales at creative commons summit in Dubrovnik in 2008, i have had a vague understanding of wiki structure until now, yet read it all the time. Its part of my daily source of information. Excuse any offence I might have made, your just going with your way as a volunteer on this system. nothing to be gained here for me by argument with you, just learning about what is appropriate and what not here. I'm mostly offended that my kind is not welcome here...not sure if i should change or your system. It's not my nature to go around publishing things that have no basis.
 * Then please please please please please please please PLEASE PLEASE, I beseech you, read Verifiability (aka WP:V) and Verifiability, not truth (aka WP:VNT). I did not write these. They are not some minority view of some little cabal of obsessed editors working for Putin or the CIA or both. They are part of the building here; they are (in Internet years) as old as the hills; they are what it is here. These pages tell you everything, fundamentally, that you need to know about editing here. They are not how you clearly want to work (yes, I read your user page and everything else you have written here so far) but they are how it works here and, if observed, would enable you to have a long and happy career editing here. WP:VNT seems particularly difficult to stomach – really counterintuitive – if you have shown up here with a message to get across and some comments to make – I found it very hard to accept when I first read it, but actually when you think about it it is the only way forward. So you are not, I am afraid, going to change the system (well, not this week), but if you can compromise and work with the way it is right now, you can do some great editing. With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks
I guess those that dig deeper can always find anything written. So the interesting things to read on wiki, are the things that have been redacted. Might it be good to create a robot that would create a new wikipedia, called Wiki-redacted. This would be competition to Mr Wales, and allowable through the wiki creative commons license, as they license with creative commons. Good idea? Throw the shit at the shit and see what shit sticks.