User talk:Noellesch9

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Noellesch9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliano Korstanje[edit]

Many of the sources are wp:primary and are not acceptable. You need to discuss this on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Maximiliano Korstanje talk:Maximiliano Korstanje. I keep saying this and nobody takes any heed. This is getting quite frustrating. I will undo your edit. You need to read and understand wp:BRD, wp:reliable sources, wp:NOTRS, and possibly wp:COI. Get wp:consensus before adding anything. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim: JZG has deleted everything I wrote, Can you help me?. I am planning to write on Korsanje theory, and the discussion he awoke, but need other librarian do not delete what I am writting. Moderating is better than deleting. JZG puts a message this is a vannity biography, which is not true. Reliable sources are acreddited peer review journals which are often used by experts. Korstanje hates social netowrks and declined to have personal websites. what I have only is what he publishes and newspapers where he is cited. If you want I abort this biography??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPROF. Find Reliable Independent Published Sources which discuss MK - not just his own papers. Then add well-supported content to the article. If other people have written about his work, say what they said in your own words, or give brief quotations in quotation marks, and give the references. Simple. PamD 23:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok that sounds good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to emulate this bio from what has been written on Noel Salazar, I do not know if this is acorrect template?. If I understand right Wikipedia does not need I cite Korstanje works but only what others, which would be newspapers, articles and sources, says on Korstanje´s work. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Noel B. Salazar is not a good example to copy. It appears to have been created by one of Salazar's own students, and largely edited by that same editor. It's not obvious whether Salazar is notable enough for an article - a previous version of the article, written by the same editor, was deleted in 2010 after discussion at AfD. PamD 23:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And until a couple of minutes ago, when a helpful editor upgraded the references after I tagged the article with {{Link rot}}, the article had lazy bare-URL references, not a good example to follow. PamD 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule if an article has been largely edited by editors who have not worked on any other articles, then it is unlikely to be a good example to follow. PamD 23:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Pam I will follow others examples — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle, have you read any of the comments asking you to sign your posts? If you are incapable of understanding this simple convention, then you should not be trying to edit an encyclopedia. Your knowledge of English also seems doubtful: did you mean "I will follow other examples" or "I will follow others' examples"? Either of them makes sense, but what you typed did not. PamD 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)I[reply]

Dear Pam, I log in each time I edit in wikipedia, I note all your suggestions but I need to learn more how wikipedia works. I see the biography of Rodolfo Enrique Fogwill as a potential template. Anyway, I will do my best to make the same with Korstanje but will be the site open for other users and editor to intervene because my lack of knowledge respecting to the rules of wikipedia. sorry if my english is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle, logging in is not the same as signing your posts. Please, every time you add something to a talk page (either an article talk page or a user talk page, including this one, your own talk page), just type ~~~~ at the end. That adds the date, time and your editor name. Is it so difficult to understand? PamD 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK SURE Noellesch9 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope[edit]

Pam and Jim cannot give you permission to include promotional content, and in fact did not, they merely made some suggestions based on a good-faith reading of your request - however, your request was based on some false premises, and my long familiarity with the world of substandard and fraudulent sources is sufficient to be confident that some of the content you included is essentially equivalent to academic vanity publishing. Please do not reinsert this material again. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so persistent in repeatedly adding that content? Please discuss on the talk page. Get wp:Consensus before adding. See wp:DR for advice. Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have included valida and prestige academic sources, obviously you are not an real academic and for that reason you do not valorise my work. From the start, I acted in good faith and appreicated Jim and Pam helps. Evidently, this is too much job to me. Go ahead delete the website, but please do not believe you are an scholar, you are not. I hope sincerlly some day wikipedia would be a serious platform towards knowledge, today it is a fake because of editor like you. cheers Noelle.

Me a "scholar"? No, I'm not; never professed to be one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. BTW. It appears that you haven't done your scholarly research. You keep re-adding content after being told multiple times not to do so and given links to policy on what to do. If you want an article published, do you get to drop the article into a scholarly journal without review? They have, or at least should have policies and procedures. Unless, of course, they are the vanity press. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to do so per Wikipedia's wp:policy. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and most of my "suggestions" consisted of pointing you to policy and procedures. Jim1138 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you Jim you have been tremedous help as well as Pam. But this guy lacked respect to me. This is not a war editing, am an student who want to contribute to wikipedia because it is a good idea, project, that declined or it is being rejected by academicians because people like guy. I do not want to struggle or discuss this is not my style. I am not persistent but need to learn many things. The message was not intended to you, but to Guy.

I leave editing this biography untill I learn how to do it. After all I do not intend to undermine the credibility of Korstanje who is unaware of my actions. The point is that many biographies of living people as David Altheide, Ignatieff, Caren Kaplan are incorrect, or biased. I like to help

Notice of edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maximiliano Korstanje. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit more carefullly[edit]

Noelle, I have already asked you to sign and date edits to my talk page (and to any other talk page). You can either type ~~~~ or use the "signature" icon on the editing bar. In your last edit, you started the first line with a space: this produces an effect which I don't think you intended. See the state of my talk page as you left it here. When you do an edit, either to an article or to a talk page, please take a moment to look at it and check that all is well. If not, then try to fix it, or ask for help, or revert the edit. You say you are a university student so you are obviously an intelligent person: please apply some of your intelligence to learning how to interact courteously with other editors in this encyclopedia. Making a mistake once is one thing, but failure to read and learn is liable to upset other editors. Although this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there is also the saying that "Competence is Required". PamD 16:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for your comments nad let me know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you are still not taking any notice of my advice: please sign all messages on talk pages, even your own. It's the only way for anyone reading the page to be able to know who said what and when. There is also a convention that when replying to a message you indent it using :, repeated as often as needed to indent by several levels. I've indented your reply above. Please take the trouble to learn a little more about editing this encyclopedia and communicating with other editors. PamD 22:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what do you suggest? stop editing this biography? I have added valid source, I do not see any conflict of interests per wikipedia rules Noellesch9 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely the messenger since the original poster there did not leave the required notification on your talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Maximiliano Korstanje. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. None of the references appears to include his date of birth, so do not remove the template which requests a citation for this unsourced information. PamD 21:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I noted this guy Korstanje has nominated at the top of ranking which is based on the number of publications I feel this is a good credible source, but unsure if other editors will revert this? thoughts? Noellesch9 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what I know from Korstanje, I tried objectivity in this. I feel the next step, which may take some months, will be know further whether he gained international recognitions and awards which can be empirically validated. Noellesch9 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for pages regarding living people[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I do not why you want to santion me?, I am doing nothing wrong, even I agree With Pam to edit other biographies, leaving Korstanje for other editors. I feel Bauman biography is completely wrong, as well as Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens. I only want to help I do not know because it is so difficult to you. The number of edits, this is normal since I am not Korstanje I do not know all his work. I should start an investigaqtion and editing sometimes I find something. Noellesch9 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Noelle, I'm having a little trouble following you. When you say "I do not know because it is so difficult to you", do you mean "I do not know why it is so difficult to you"? That would make sense. And what does "I should start an investigation" mean? You must be using "should" in an unusual way, but I can't make out what you meant to say. I'm afraid problems with the English language have made your article contributions hard to understand also. Both your additions to Zygmunt Bauman have been reverted by native English speakers who couldn't understand them, and I have to say your edit to Jean Baudrillard is also hard to understand. I'm sorry, this can't be any fun to hear, and I'm sure you're very knowledgeable about the subjects you edit, but have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language instead?

About the discretionary sanctions: the alert I posted in the yellow box means that biographies of living people are especially sensitive articles, and therefore the Arbitration committee has authorized administrators to use their own discretion (that's why it's called "discretionary sanctions") in sanctioning editors of these articles who edit unhelpfully. For instance, an administrator can give an editor a topic ban from some or all biographies. That would mean the editor wouldn't be allowed to edit biographies. Of course they would be warned first. Note that the alert doesn't mean you have been editing unhelpfully. You can see how it says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date" at the top. When I gave you the alert, I was thinking of your editing of Maximiliano Korstanje, which you have now said you will stop editing, so in that sense it's not needed any more. But all biographies of living people need to be edited with extra care. By giving you the alert, I basically wanted you to be aware of that, and of the need to study our policies and listen to advice from experienced editors. I'm sorry the wording of the alert is so bureaucratic, but I do need to post it exactly as-is, in order for it to "count" as an alert. Compare [1]. Feel free to ask if you have further questions. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Korstanje[edit]

Your having limited time is not a reason for me, a vastly more experienced editor of Wikipedia, to leave material which I know to fail our content policies. All you seem to do is inflate the resume of Korstanje. Now would be a great time to stop.Guy (Help!) 19:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just, I want to help. ok, I will leave editing this bio Noellesch9 (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Did you know that there are versions of Wikipedia in most languages? If English is not your first language, you could browse through the List of Wikipedias to find one that you would find easier to contribute to. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC) mmmmm it is always the same in Spanish editors are abusive. They never are intelectuals or read the biographies one likes to edit. anyway thanks for your suggestion[reply]

Still not signing your posts, or indenting your replies, I notice. WP:CIR. PamD 22:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After all the warnings, and after repeatedly claiming you're done at Maximiliano Korstanje, you have gone back to editing it via the IP 181.29.25.187 (which you have explicitly claimed as yours on User talk:181.29.25.187), just as disruptively, and again wasting editors' time for promotional purposes. That's enough. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Working in Wikipedia[edit]

Am leaving this message at the following user talk pages:

I don't know if what a person wrote from the 190' IP address here is true or not -- namely We are part of an university project which aims to improve the content of wikipedia filling the gaps with information. We are students and academicians and experts in the field we are participating. -- but the way you are behaving is unacceptable in Wikipedia.

This community is governed by its policies and guidelines, which the community itself put in place over the past sixteen years. You are ignoring these community norms.

We do not care who you say you are or what expertise you claim. What we care about is content and behavior, and neither the content you are adding nor your behavior is even close to acceptable here.

Please stop trying to force content into Wikipedia about Maximiliano Korstanje and instead ask questions and try to learn how Wikipedia works. Please edit only through one named account. The Noellesch9 account is the oldest one that I can see and that account is blocked. Everything you are doing is what we call block evasion. Please stop, and work through the Noellesch9 account to get unblocked before doing anything further. To get unblocked you will need to demonstrate that you understand that you cannot create sockpuppets, cannot try to force content into WP by edit warring by editing while logged out or creating yet more accounts, and that you will try to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]