User talk:JimmyDNYC

Welcome!
Hello, JimmyDNYC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Talk page messages
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

Jehiel R. Elyachar changes
Your recent edits to the article for Jehiel R. Elyachar removed sourced content and changed material that conflicts with the sources provided. Please be careful when removing or changing content to ensure that all material in the article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, I'm Alansohn. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jehiel R. Elyachar without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jehiel R. Elyachar
He is my grandfather and I was editing his page to correct it. The NY Times article you reference was outrageous and a letter was sent to the Times correcting it. Having seen untrue and disparaging "facts" on Wikipedia, I wanted them down immediately. And will continue to do so until only truthful details about his life are listed. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDNYC (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please understand that the content of the article is based on multiple reliable and verifiable sources. I have reviewed the article and the sources provided and I see no material difference between the content of the Wikipedia article and the references provided. As a relative of Mr. Elyachar I am sure that you feel strongly about the descriptions of Mr. Elyachar. However, there appears to have been no corrections made to any of the sources used in the article nor has a letter been published that might serve to rebut the descriptions that you have removed based on your views of the events on question. Wikipedia policy does not countenance removal of sourced content and I would further suggest that you review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy which will help explain how Wikipedia addresses concerns such as yours. In the absence of reliable and verifiable sources supporting claims that the material should be removed, the material will be restored in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not decide what is fact or fiction. So any articles published are factual? Articles published decades later recalling a story are reliable? I'm pretty sure I know my grandfather better than the person who wrote that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDNYC (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia does not attempt to portray "truth"; it's content is based on what is verifiable. Publications such as The New York Times do research and verify their content, and they also will respond to corrections on matters of fact. It may well be that there are other articles in different reliable sources that would contradict the descriptions in The Times, but I have been unable to find anything. While you may well feel that your recollections are more accurate, the fact that they come directly from you violates policy forbidding Original Research and avoiding Conflicts of Interest in editing Wikipedia articles. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

JimmyDNYC, please stop removing content that is supported by highly reputable sources. If you believe there are errors within the article, then please use the article talk page to discuss your concerns with other editors. Repeatedly blanking material you don't agree with is disruptive, and per Wikipedia's dispute resolution process discussion now needs to occur in order to avoid edit-warring.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "reputable sources" you are referring to is an ex-husband (Spencer Dvorkin) of his daughter and a former building manager (Gregg Carlovich) recalling things from almost 50 years ago about a man they apparently aren't fond of.

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012 (continued)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jehiel R. Elyachar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jehiel R. Elyachar. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. No one wants the article to mis-portray the facts in any way, nor to malign your relative, but deleting materiel without discussion (or even edit summaries) is not a good way to accomplish the goal of neutrality with due weight based on reliable sources. An editor has recently attempted to reword one section. See what you think, and offer your commentary on the talk page. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi JimmyDNYC, it seems your introduction to Wikipedia has been pretty rocky, but I want to emphasize what JoeSperrazza says: I really think you'll get better results with a calm discussion on the article talk page, rather than just reverting other people. You're new and you seem to be editing in good faith, so a certain level of overexuberance is natural, but eventually someone is going to come along and either block the account, or protect the page, to stop this back and forth, and then you still won't have the change you want, plus you'll be unable to argue for it any longer. The article has been like this for 2 years; please leave it be for a short while until it can be discussed. Your opinion welcome at Talk:Jehiel R. Elyachar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The rewording is fine. I don't understand why you (not sure who is in charge) insists on not removing the line, "After the war, he insisted that others continue to call him "Colonel", even his children.[4]" That is categorically untrue and I would appreciate it being taken down. Thank you.


 * Hi, Jimmy. No one person is in charge - Wikipedia operates on consensus. I agree that the phrase in question should be removed, and have noted as much on the talk page of the article. Your removal was reverted because, at the time, you provided no explanation (via talk page comments or edit summary) explaining your removal. I've noted that the phrase, even though (presumably) referenced by the NYTimes article, is trivia at best and is being given undue weight by being included. No other editor disagrees with me, so I intend to remove it later today, but want to give other editors a chance to comment (and hence gain consensus for the change. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)