|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Queen Anne's Revenge has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Queen Anne's Revenge 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=RJfU_bplRJU) 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) 23:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Nautilus Productions has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Hi Caprockranger. I work on conflict of interest (COI) issues here in Wikipedia. All your edits to date have been about Nautilus Productions and are somewhat promotional with regard to Rick Allen. This makes your account what we call a "single purpose account" (please see WP:SPA) I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some questions for you below.
Hello, Caprockranger. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.
Question
Wikipedia highly values contributions by subject matter experts; at the same time, experts have some special challenges when they first start editing here. Please see the essay with advice for experts, WP:EXPERTS, which discusses both sides of that coin.
One of the challenges is related to COI, which has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, since we allow editors to be anonymous here and edits are immediately published (no intervening publisher or peer review). Please do read WP:COI, especially the section on Writing about yourself and your work.
Wikipedia is a reference work that the public relies on; managing COI is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.
While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some relationship with Nautilus Productions? You can answer how ever you wish, but if you have some relationship with Nautilus - especially if you work for or own Nautilus, you must disclose that per the Terms of Use. (disclosing now is OK - editors with conflicts of interest are part of the community). After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 04:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's my company. Feel free to refute anything posted on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprockranger ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for disclosing that. OK, as I mentioned above there are two steps - disclosure and peer review. Please let me finish the disclosure part. Best practice with COI is to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page (here: User:Caprockranger) and on articles where your conflict is relevant. Would you please add a statement to your userpage disclosing your COI? Something like " Nautilus Productions is my company" or the like. (You can see an example of such a disclosure here: User:Alexbrn, for example. With respect to the article level disclosure, I have added a tag to the Nautilus Productions' article talk page. Since you have edited a wide range of pages where you have a conflict, a more practical approach may be to add a link to the disclosure to your Wikipedia signature, which you can do in your Preferences. "Middle 8" is another editor with a declared COI on his user page, and he has incorporated a link to his COI in his signature, as you can see on his talk page here: User talk:Middle 8. Would you please make the declaration on your User page?
- Now, for the peer review step. Going forward, please do not edit the article directly, but rather offer suggestions at the article's Talk page. You can do that easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Nautilus Productions for example - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. Will you please agree to do that going forward, on articles where you have a conflict of interest?
- Finally, I have tagged the Nautlius Productions article with a COI tag, and left a note about that on the article Talk page.
- I find it interesting that the actual experts on a subject are limited by wiki but any anonymous moron who may or may not have any expertise whatsoever can edit happily away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprockranger ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing interesting about the fact that Wikipedia has to set limits so everyone with a business idea isn't allowed to come here and use Wikipedia as a free advertising spot. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 13:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Point made & proven Caprockranger
- Hi Caprockranger - first, a note about talking with other editors (basic etiquette here). Please indent your comments to "thread" them in discussions in Talk pages. You do that putting one or more colon in front of your comments - the wikipedia software turns one colon into one tab, two colons into two tabs, etc. Also, please "sign" your posts by typing four tildas ~~~~ after them - the wikipedia software turns that into a "signature" - links to your user page, user Talk page, and a date stamp. both things are important here. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Caprockranger - please indent and sign your posts. please. More on point, as you can tell by Jeraphine's comment, we see a lot of people who come to WIkipedia and really... abuse it, for the purposes of promotion. And that is hard to watch, and some editors get pretty sharp about it. We really do love experts here - experts have contributed tons and tons of time and great content to WP and have helped make it the great reference tool that it is. But adding expertise, and using WP for promotion, are two very different things. I just reviewed most of your contributions, and while you have added objective content to a few articles on subjects you clearly know a lot about, almost all your edits have added content about yourself or your company. That is really not good. Please stop doing that. It violates one of the pillars of WP, and a key policy - namely,
WP:PROMO. Again, we really, really welcome your expertise, but not your use of WP to promote yourself and Nautilus. I hope you can see the difference. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- by the way, the "rule" about not editing directly where you have a COI is relevant to any article where that is going on.. not just the Nautilus article. You can offer suggestions for sourced content that references you or your company on article Talk pages. Please just don't add them directly to articles. Please work with the community to manage your conflict of interest. Will you please do that? If you write about stuff you know lots about, and you don't reference yourself or your company in the content or references, it is just fine if you edit directly. We encourage that! (but not of course on the Nautilus article, which is all about you and your company. On that article, you should stop editing directly altogether) Again, I hope you can see the difference. Jytdog ( talk) 13:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Caprockranger - please indent and sign your posts. please. More on point, as you can tell by Jeraphine's comment, we see a lot of people who come to WIkipedia and really... abuse it, for the purposes of promotion. And that is hard to watch, and some editors get pretty sharp about it. We really do love experts here - experts have contributed tons and tons of time and great content to WP and have helped make it the great reference tool that it is. But adding expertise, and using WP for promotion, are two very different things. I just reviewed most of your contributions, and while you have added objective content to a few articles on subjects you clearly know a lot about, almost all your edits have added content about yourself or your company. That is really not good. Please stop doing that. It violates one of the pillars of WP, and a key policy - namely,
WP:PROMO. Again, we really, really welcome your expertise, but not your use of WP to promote yourself and Nautilus. I hope you can see the difference. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Caprockranger I've now gone through the Nautilus Productions article and you have actually made a reasonable job of avoiding being promotional. I've culled one sentence that I think needs an independent source and removed the word 'exclusive' from 'licensor' as that may be interesting to a marketing department but not to an encyclopedia. Now, here's my declaration: I'm happily retired and have no financial interest in anything diving-related. Nevertheless, I have worked for a PR & marketing company and have some understanding of "promotion". I have also been diving for around 40 years and instructing at the highest level for over 20 years. Not to mention editing Wikipedia for 7 years (and you can check the articles I've taken to FA/GA if you're interested). So this anonymous moron feels a certain entitlement to "edit happily away". I welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, particularly your expertise in underwater videography; we need experts to add content, but you must ensure that the reason you contribute is to improve the encyclopedia by using your expertise as generally as you can. You've still got a lot to learn about Wikipedia editing - you've found quality sources but need to quote them in full; and your logo would have been deleted at some point if I hadn't supplied a fair use rationale for it. On the other hand, I've seen you supply good content to multiple articles and I encourage you to do more. It's fair to say that other editors will give a little more leeway to editors writing about themselves if they already have made a reputation for also writing about lots of other topics. I wish you well and hope you enjoy editing here. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- RexxS Thanks for your thoughtful reply though you are still anonymous while am not. Would love to see your contributions. I defer to your 7 years of editing and expertise but I'm sure that you also had much to learn as an editor (and probably still are learning) so as you accurately point out I'm a newb on this turf and I have much to learn. Though I do try to stay in my lane when adding to articles and do not believe that I should be editing anything about which I don't have some expertise unlike others here. Regards Caprockranger
Nice work RexxS. Finally couple of words for you Caprockranger. Generally, commenting negatively about other editors gets you no where - we pretty explicit rules about "commenting on content, not contributors" especially on article talk pages. This discussion, here on your Talk page, has been about your COI, and that is a special (and rare) kind of discussion here. So again - I recommend you stop sniping at other editors - it is a bad foot to get off on, and will lead to other people not liking you, and if you keep going, will get you thrown out of here. As a conflicted editor, you will need other people to want to work with you, since you cannot directly edit the article about your company anymore. Anyway, good luck, and thanks again for talking. Jytdog ( talk) 22:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Caprockranger. Just want to make sure you are aware that we have a policy against editing under more than one account here, which we call "Sockpuppeting". The policy is here: WP:SOCK. I am writing this to you because this edit appears to me, to have been made by you under a different account. I am not going to bring a case at WP:SPI since you are pretty new here, and if this was you, you may not have been aware of that policy. Best regards Jytdog ( talk) 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: El Salvador (ship) has been accepted
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of treasure hunters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Center for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation (CMAC), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Belle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
About this - It is disgusting that you tried to use a Wikipedia article to publicize your lawsuit. Never. Do. That. Again. We have discussed COI issues in the past - this went way over the line. The next time you do this I will seek a significant block against you, and if you continue, those blocks will be escalated until you are banned from Wikipedia. Please reply and acknowledge this . If you don't acknowledge this or just delete it I will initiate action against you now, and not wait for next time (which I hope does not come). Jytdog ( talk) 07:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, i went through some contribs and found two more -
this and somewhere in
this set of diffs, and I deleted them both. I'll tell you what - I am not going to clean up after you have shit in our backyard. I will give you a couple of days to delete any others that remain, and then I will go over your contribs again. If I find another reference to this still in a Wikipedia article, I will seek a block now. Clean up your own shit. Man, I am angry at you.
Jytdog (
talk) 07:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Acknowledged
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk 20:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Caprockranger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Caprockranger. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks of North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulaski ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 20:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Caprockranger. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Press Photographers Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CRCA. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
Thanks for your interest in cuneiform text. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)