User talk:Sandom

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
Re: Bloap, it was deleted because the term is currently non-notable. For more about what qualifies as notable on Wikipedia, see Notability. Thanks. --Fang Aili talk 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You said: Under your definition of "Notable", the terms Internet or Blog would not have been permitted within Wikipedia until they became mainstream. That's exactly right. The thing to keep in mind here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore all content must be notable (according to the guidelines linked above). "Blog" wasn't notable until it became mainstream. I encourage you to resubmit Bloap once it reaches that level of use, or if you can cite sources showing the term is in widespread use. If we created articles about every term that someone made up, Wikipedia would be a bunch of nonsense articles. I'm not saying that Bloap is nonsense, but that there must be standards. --Fang Aili talk 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

J._G._Sandom
I've noticed that your username is Sandom and that you are editing an article about yourself. That poses a huge problem as the Autobiography guidelines strongly urge you not to write about yourself in Wikipedia as it poses significant conflict of interest and neutral point of view problems. Please be VERY careful about our neutral point of view and vanity policies as linked at the top of this page as breaching them will result in your autobiography being nominated for deletion. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources
After viewing a "Requires Citation" note on the entry for my name (following an entry disagreement with Fang!), I tried to insert the proper citations but was unable to operate the footnote function properly. Can you help? I can send you the edited page with the citations if you'd like.Sandom 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)J.G. Sandom


 * Follow the steps at Cite_sources. I've done so for you already. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing Article
Netsnipe:

I didn't write this article. But once it was posted, I thought I would update it. And since I saw a note to add citations, I thought I'd try and help out. Was this wrong?

J. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandom (talk • contribs).


 * Not inherently. But some editors (as I did) would have automatically assumed that 68.38.12.54 (the anonymous person who started the article) and User:Sandom were one and the same. Anoymous accounts don't have much credibility around here. But since you've provided third-party sources to establish your notability, then the article is fine to stay. Just don't be tempted into turning the article into your own soapbox to promote yourself and you'll hopefully stay on the right side of WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

J._G._Sandom
Do not remove csd template without giving a reason. STTW (talk)  21:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To SlaveToTheWage: I was alerted to changes to this page and opted to cut sections that I thought were promotional in nature. For example, (an overabundance of) references to favorable book reviews -- though accurate and documentable -- have been removed. The remaining sections seem to meet current standards. Activity on this page seems to be increasing. User:Sandom

March 2008
Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. STTW (talk)  21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To SlaveToTheWage: Please avoid threatening those who are trying to correct errors on entries. Also, please note the communication with NetSnipe which reveals that I did not create this page. Therefore, I was observing the protocol in the alert box. Frankly, I'd rather not spend any time editing the faulty information on this page. But when faulty entries are brought to my attention, it seems counter to the spirit of wikipedia to simply ignore them. Crowdsourcing the editing function is at the heart of your mission. I am one of that crowd, and more than passingly familiar with the subject. User:Sandom

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 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;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To Seresin: This makes eminent sense. I will exercise great caution should I bother to edit this article for accuracy again. Thanks for the advice. User:Sandom

Talkback
kelapstick(bainuu) 17:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to J. G. Sandom. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at J. G. Sandom, you may be blocked from editing. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at J. G. Sandom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not an anonymous editor
Hello J.G. Sandom,

One of your complaints about Wikipedia seems to be that many of the editors are anonymous. Not all are. My name is Jim Heaphy, and I live in American Canyon, California. I own a small business with my wife, have been married for 31 years, and have two young adult sons. I have been an active editor here for four years, and you can see lists of the articles I've written and expanded on my user page. I am active on Facebook and my mobile phone is 707-486-6962. I present myself to you as a real person, not anonymous and faceless. My goal in doing so is to try to reduce the tension that has developed recently about your biography. After reading the talk page, it seems clear that mistakes have been made by both sides. As a novelist (and as an ad man), you must have an excellent ability to put yourself in other's shoes. The editors you're dealing with are human beings, volunteers, who work to maintain an encyclopedia with over four million articles. They have feelings and some may resent harsh accusations. You can criticize Wikipedia all you want, and criticize Jimbo Wales by repeating really old stories all you want. Jimbo is not in charge here. I think I know some of Wikipedia's problems far better than you do. But you link to your Wikipedia biography on your website. You see it as important. It is the #6 website in terms of traffic, and #1 by far in terms of original content.

It is in your best interest to cooperate on a reasonable basis with experienced editors. Please do not edit war or act in a disruptive fashion. If you do, it is very likely that your account will be blocked and you will lose your ability to have input into the article. That would be unfortunate. Thanks for hearing me out.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know where American Canyon was, Cullen - had to look it up. @Sandom, I will be blunter than Cullen. The edits to your article and your tirades on the article talk page are extraordinarily disruptive. If you continue, as Cullen states, you are likely to be blocked. Your best course of action is to stop editing your article and suggest changes on the talk page, and do so respectfully and civilly. No one is going to assist you if your attitude remains combative and threatening. Cullen, of course, is free to divulge personal details about himself. However, every editor on Wikipedia is entitled to good faith, and the fact that they are "anonymous" does not give you the right to treat them as if they have some hidden agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

response to Not an anonymous editor
How weird. Once again, I posted a response here and saved it back...and it just vanished. Perhaps this is because Bbb23 was posting at exactly the same time.

So, let me try this again.

First, let me thank you, Mr. Heaphy, for your reasonable response. I really appreciate your note and its tone.

I have absolutely no desire to be at war with Wikipedia. There are many things about this resource that I find admirable...although I would prefer it if folks weren't anonymous which, I believe, simply promotes bad behavior and unaccountability.

And to Bbb23 I say, look, I didn't start this war. I was being perfectly reasonable (at least I thought so), and was trying to follow your guidelines. It was your editor Huon who escalated this whole thing.

So, let me propose this compromise. I will stop my negative comments about Wikipedia and "call off the dogs" as it were, if you agree to post the following copy under the Author section. I believe it is reasonable and strikes a balance between both positive and negative notes. So, here goes:

Author
If this works for you, I will cease and desist.

Thanking you in advance,

J.G. Sandom
 * Sorry, this isn't a tit-for-tat negotiation. Although your tone is more civil, it is still essentially a threat. That's not the way Wikipedia works, and we're not changing Wikipedia just for you. So, I suggest you propose your change on the article talk page, and do so in the correct way, not the way you've done it here. If you can obtain a consensus for your change, then it can be added to the article. It would be best if someone other than you implemented any agreed-upon change. Otherwise, you're in the awkward position of having to determine consensus when you're conflicted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23 I am not threatening you in any way, shape or form. Please don't be so sensitive. I am simply suggesting a compromise that brings down the level of tension and provides both parties with a way out of this fracas. If I have suggested it in the wrong location, please forgive my ignorance. I am not a Wikipedia expert. Frankly, I thought I had already suggested said compromise on the Talk Page. But, in case I didn't or you missed it, let me post it on the Talk Page again. Thanks for your suggestion. Sandom (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)J.G. Sandom

Dear Bbb23: It appears that it is you who is doing the threatening now: "Don't resurrect these comments." Really? Or what? Will the Wikipedia Police come to my home and arrest me? LOL. No, seriously. I am curious as to why you find them so threatening? Why do you feel that letting others see them is so, so terrible. Sandom (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DRN
It is OK, I got your message and also one from a bot informing me my name was listed at DRN. I will comment when I have time to be thoughtful. I am now a passenger in a bouncing car, responding by Droid Razr. Not optimal. I wish you well, though I disagree with your approach to this matter.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, be careful, Jim! Drive (or have your driver drive) safe. Sandom (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ive posted some further comments at the DRN, I dont know if you intend to remain active on Wikipedia, but I hope you do. You are more than welcome to make further comments if desired :) -- Nbound (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Ive closed the discussion anyway as nothing fruitful was being added by others... Though its stilll there to browse. :) -- Nbound (talk)