User talk:Jimmypader

Welcome!
Hello, Jimmypader, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Getting started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=596440447 your edit] to Twig work may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ] using wood that has not been milled into lumber and is still in its natural shape describes the National park service rustic style. {{cite web | title=Mount Ranier

Proposed deletion of Mountain laurel handrail


The article Mountain laurel handrail has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable, pretty much an advertisement. All links are pointing to same company with exception of the one that cites the tree's habitat. Google search shows topic not worthy of encyclopedia

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ggpur (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tokyogirl79Tokyogirl79 10:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally we'd give someone a warning, but a look at your edit history shows that you've been adding in various links that reference your company and yourself in some form or fashion. It looks like you've been doing this undetected for years. Please understand that a lack of action by other people does not mean that posting WP:SPAM and doing other forms of WP:SELFPROMOTION is permissible. Given that this seems to be your main purpose for being here, you will have to make a very, very good case to prove that you will not try to re-add various links to your company website (indirect or otherwise) to Wikipedia or try to make any mention of yourself or your company elsewhere on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79Tokyogirl79 10:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've fixed your unblock request. I'm indeed telling you that the brand pages were not created by people affiliated with the brands. We don't in general allow people to do that, and when we discover they've been doing so, we take action to prevent it, just like we did with you. By the way, your work is breathtakingly beautiful; I wish I'd seen them before we did our recent remodel. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem comes from the fact that by editing, you've added several links to your company and articles that specifically mention it. That's considered to be spam by our standards. Pretty much what we're asking you to do is to edit without specifically mentioning your company, linking to the company's page as a source (in any context), to avoid indirectly linking to the company by specifically choosing news stories that mention you/the company, and so on. Also, the majority of editors on here are not affiliated with the things they write about. There are some people who come in here to edit with a COI, but many of those are either caught (because they were trying to add WP:PUFFERY or indirect spam) or they were open about their COI and did not directly edit things they were related to and commented about it on the talk page (or made edits so insanely minor that they were little more than changing dates and such). The point is, the existence of other editors who may have made COI edits does not mean that they're condoned. It may just mean that they haven't been caught yet or have been editing in a way that didn't make us think that a block was warranted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I just don't see where you really understand why I blocked you. Not being aware of the rules isn't entirely an excuse and as someone who was adding things that you were personally affiliated with, you really should have checked in with someone to ask if you were doing things right. You've been editing off and on since 2010, so you've had time to look over policies and your basic editing style does show that you are at least passing familiar with some of them so you really should have checked to see if adding your own company's product page as a source was really kosher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this per the request of Jimmy, who would like a second admin to come in. I've kept the comment I left per above. I think it's fair enough to want a third admin to come in, but I'd like to re-state that I really don't see where he's shown that he really understands the block rationale and will try to edit without adding his own company info in. That's really all we're truly asking, that you edit without adding your company's info or links into Wikipedia. The pictures are fair game, FWIW. You uploaded the pictures to your website, so it's reasonable to put that there as a link. However adding links to your website in various articles is seen as spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi both @jpgordon -- Thanks for the compliment.

I'm going to state my case for the undeletion of the Mountain Laurel Handrails page.


 * 1) 1 This is a real thing. This thing existed before me and independently of me. As per Wikipedia Pillar 1 that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, from Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedia, "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands."

My article meets this criteria as it presents the history and construction of mountain laurel handrail.


 * 1) 2 As per Pillar #2, the article is written from a neutral point of view and only cites my company as a reference.


 * 1) 3 As I stated above, "With this deletion, you have subtracted from the knowledge base and made wikipedia a less-useful resource. This is a shame, as the mission of Wiklipedia is '...to collect and develop educational content, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.' Deleting this page is absolutely opposed to the entire raison d'etre of Wikipedia."

To summarize, the Mountain Laurel Handrails wikipedia page belongs on Wikipedia as it complies with all of the rules of Wikipedia as well as furthering the mission of expanding the knowledge base.

Thank you for your consideration of this. Jimmypader (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with the page is that none of the sources really showed notability for the specific term "Mountain Laurel Handrails", which was compounded by the fact that 3 out of the 5 sources were links to your company's website. Of the other two links, one mentioned your company specifically and the other didn't mention handrails at all. That combined with some of the phrasing was what pushed it as spammy for me. Even without it, there just wasn't any notability asserted. Just because something exists doesn't mean that it merits an article. You'd have to have coverage in say, an academic text that talked about the history of the craft, more news articles about the craft itself, and so on. Just existing doesn't give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you seem keen to cite Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, let me throw a few more your way: Wikipedia topics must have received extensive coverage from unaffiliated sources, Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia content must be supported by reliable sources, existence does not demonstrate notability and Wikipedia is not about everything. Yunshui 雲 水 07:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, this is a very old art form native to the Appalachian mountains. I have tried to document it, however, there is very little solid historical documentation as to origins, first practitioners, etc. What can be done to make the article acceptable in your opinion?

Jimmypader (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully request the source to my article.
 * The problem is that we need some sort of documentation about it in some form or fashion. We can't really take things at face value: we have to have books, articles, news articles, and the like. Even if it's something that exists and people know about, we still need the documentation. We don't have to know exactly how everything happened to a T, but it has to have been documented somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   20:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that's got to be frustrating to read, and I've had multiple subjects I've been unable to write about because they lacked the coverage and documentation, but we have to have RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   20:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Again I still believe that this article deserves to be on Wikipedia. http://www.ncdoi.com/osfm/Engineering_and_Codes/Documents/evaluations_2012/2012%20Naturally%20durable%20wood%20and%20Other%20Alternatives%20to%20preservative%20treated%20wood_.pdf http://barkhouse.com/product/handrail-components/ http://www.aahardwoods.com/gallery_rails.htm http://www.appalachiandesigns.com/stairs-and-railings/ http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/design/rustic-railings-remodeler-turns-to-niche-craft-in-slow-economy
 * Mountain Laurel Handrail is referenced in North Carolina Building Code:
 * Multiple companies use mountain laurel to make railing:
 * Mountain Laurel Handrails were featured in April 2011 Remodeling magazine.

I feel like I have presented numerous reasons to support the inclusion of this centuries old Appalachian art form. I feel as if all of the responses as to why the article should not be included perhaps did not consider all of the facets. I see many, many, many articles with 'citation needed'. Perhaps the initial deletion of this article was a bit hasty and the reviewers have not dug very deep into this issue, preferring only to glance at it passingly. Also, the fact that this article has been live for 4 years surely indicates that it is quality content.

For example, consider the cable railings article. Just like mountain laurel handrail, cable railing is a real thing manufactured by companies, which, by my count, have about 20 external links pointing at their pages. I'm not trying to call anyone out, cuz it's not my style :( But this is the case on pretty much every page I've ever edited, and many that I've seen on Wikipedia.

Regardless of anything else, my argument is this: Mountain Laurel Handrails is deserving of a Wikipedia entry based solely on its merit of being a real thing, a traditional Appalachian artform being preserved and practiced by a select few.
 * Unfortunatly WP:ITEXISTS is not enough for something to deserve a Wikipedia article. A subject must be notable through coverage in third-party reliable sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimmypader (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)