User talk:ElJim1

Welcome!

Hello, ElJim1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Fort Ord BETA, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this 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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! d m z 06:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fort Ord BETA

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fort Ord BETA, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. d m z 06:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fort Ord BETA

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fort Ord BETA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zachlipton (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from FORT Ord BETA, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Zachlipton (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About your article

In reply to your note, FORT Ord BETA is a blatant copyright infringement of [1]. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more information on our policies. Note that close paraphrases of copyrighted material are also not permitted. You should also know a little bit about our notability guidelines before you create pages. In short, to be considered for inclusion in wikipedia, a topic must have substantial coverage in multiple third party reliable sources. At this time, the article makes no assertion of notability, as it doesn't reference any such sources. If this organization does have this kind of coverage, then that's great and you should WP:CITE your sources. Otherwise, it's unfortunately not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Thanks and feel free to let me know (on my talk page) if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Fort Ord BETA. 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spreckels, California

I'm sure you have a reason for reverting my edit, but you have not stated this either in your edit summaries nor on the article talk page. It would also be nice if you'd explain how things like "This produces an experience akin to being on a small island in a sea of green vegetation" belong in an encyclopedia article as opposed to a travel brochure. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... thanks for the note. On the section in question, I am not sure why you deleted the paragraph. I added only the last sentence to the section along with the link to the town park webpage. I live in this town and have had several neighbors comment on the article and thank me for adding the link. Did something violate procedures? ElJim1 (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, procedures weren't violated, other than recognizing that Wikipedia works on consensus. The link, however, is inappropriate in the middle of the article (it might perhaps belong as an external link). The language of the entire paragraph is wrong for Wikipedia; that's why I removed it. It sounds like civic boosterism, not encyclopedia content. Look at other articles about small towns; yours isn't much smaller than Kernville, California, and I understand the desire for the promotional language (we could use some more tourists up here, though what we really need is water). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spreckels

Please explain why Spreckels, California needs three links to the identical commercial web page, when links to pages advertising businesses are generally not allowed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really want just to find yourself blocked, with the Spreckels page protected and those links put on our blacklist? That's what's going to happen next. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; discussing things like this is mandatory. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the trivia regarding a city-wide garage sale you restored to the Spreckels article. As Jpgordon has attempted to explain to you repeatedly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a venue to post trivial information about your community. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again. If you continue to edit war to post this type of trivia you will very likely find your account blocked from editing. How in the world do you believe that an upcoming garage sale has any place in an encyclopedia article? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Spreckels, California

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]