User talk:SilviaNikoletti

February 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Celeste Buckingham has been reverted. Your edit here to Celeste Buckingham was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O8Ul1wnV04, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O8Ul1wnV04) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeated quote?
With your edit here you left an edit summary reference was made to the two new albums, and a repeated quote was removed Where was the quote repeated? Jim1138 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, SilviaNikoletti. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Celeste Buckingham, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are removing information with misleading edit summaries
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Celeste Buckingham, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Jim,

== I am not removing information with isleading edit summaries. I removed this information many many times, but it keeps getting revoted. There were a lot of false information on the page that has been lingering there. we are trying to finally clean up this page, but don't know how to do this without seeming suspicious. we are happy to provide any information or documentation to prove authencity of the information. there are quite a lot of "nonsense" written on the page with false information. please help us get the page cleaned up. again, we are happy to show any documents to prove authencity. Also, I am new on Wiki. I don't mean to break any rules. I was not aware of the external links etc. but am trying to implement them. Silvia


 * I asked you above about your edit summary in the Repeated quote? section above. You did not reply. I see no evidence of a repeated quote. It is obvious you have a conflict of interest, i.e. are probably removing content for Buckingham rather than to build a good encyclopedia. Given that, you should not be editing this article. Instead, please use an wp:edit request on talk:Celeste Buckingham. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Copied from my talk page to keep conversation on one page. Jim1138 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * there is no conflict of interest. I give you an example. because the title of the books are the same, the writer assumes that the book is written based on the other and writes a few lines on it. Also, he has given false information about the life history of the Buckinghams. a good encyclopedia should have the correct data. i don't know who the person is who has written these things and where he got the information, but most of the information come from hear-say. he is quoting trashy magazines. those cannot possibly be good sources of information for a solid encyclopedia. We sincerely want to clean up the mess. Even the sentences are badly formulated and hard to understand. there is also a warning on the page with three error messages about the page being problematic. I understand cyber ethic. Believe me, I am not a vandalizer, I am trying to clean up this page. it has become very trashy because someone seemed to have been either bored or over zealous to write but the information is not only incorrect but false, badly written and misleading. I am sure you and I have the same goal, to have a more reliable and useful source. In fact, the page as it is, is vandalized and I sincerely hope that we can clean it up.


 * appreciate your cooperation. thank you,SilviaNikoletti (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please keep the conversation on one page.
 * I would like for the article to be accurate and well-written. I really have no interest other than that. That said, your use of "we" implies an organization whose primary interest is Buckingham's image and not building an encyclopedia. That is your conflict of interest. WP:NOTHERE, item one appears to pertain. BTW: You still haven't answered my question above. Jim1138 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Jim, This whole thing has been written by a Czech person, it is myself and and Eva sitting in Slovakia helping with translation and checking the sources in Czech and Slovak. I understand that you deal with a lot of spammers and vandals, believe me i'm not one. If you look at the text, some of the sentences are so badly written. we have to work together because I understand the language but not well enough to check the media resources, especially when something sounds so weird. we checked the sources and most of them trashy magazines that don't have any reliable information. I thought I answered all your questions. If you mean regarding repeated quoting, it is the book. he/she mentions it at least in two different parts both on the main part and on the second part. and then he goes on to say that it was inspired by L. Frank Baum book, (just because the titles are the same.)

I understand that you want to maintain quality and prevent vandalizing and misuse. I respect that. I am just wondering why there was no control over the stuff and they way they placed them online. for example the bad formulation, and the warning signs that are there require more clear and understandable formulation as well as shorter paragraphs. I am not sure if you have read the page. some of those paragraph are unnecessarily long and not clear. also PLEASE look at these sentences:

...Originally we supposed to stay [there] only for a year, so then we will see. And [t]here we are for nearly thirteen years already. or "When we were yet little with sister, we lived in Alaska!

Well, I see that right now, the trash-maker is protected and I can't remove any of the trash.but at least I can go and change the formulation of these sentences. any objection to that? SilviaNikoletti (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Jim,

I spent time to make very legitimate corrections only last night, but I see that you have reverted even that. Why is this? This is the error on the page:

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article has an unclear citation style. (February 2014) This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. (February 2014)

What else do I have to do to be able to correct the text. You can go and check the last history and compare the sentences and see that I have corrected very bad sentence formulations such as the examples that I sent you, why are you reverting back. in my recent change I did not delete nor change content. If you are an English speaker, you can see that a lot of the sentences don't make sense. Is the problem because I am making the changes on behalf of Celeste Buckingham? is there a discrimination against the person who is the object of the writing? is there a rule which says if you are the person about whom they write, you are excluded from improving the data?

SilviaNikoletti (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)