User talk:Namsu22

Sylvester Stallone

I wrote the post http://myjourneytoselfactualization.com/sylvester-stallone/ that is my personal website. I saw the wikipedia article AFTER writing the post and was surprised there was no mention of a story that touched me and portrayed Sylvester Stallone's life in a new light for me. I have edited the post (directly on the self actualization site) to make it clear it is OK for wikipedia use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namsu22 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I see that I am locked to revert the edits I made. Please enable the edits I made, please see the first paragraph of http://myjourneytoselfactualization.com/sylvester-stallone to make it clear I don't care (in fact I'd like it to be shared) if wikipedia uses the story i transcribed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namsu22 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC) There are still some problems. The first is that the release you left on the page does not surfice. The release can not only say that wikipedia can use the text. It has to be released so that anyone can use it for any purpose. You can stipulate that you need to be given attribution. The next problem is that your personal website is not a reliable source. Information must be referenced to reliable sources. Has any reliable source discussed the events leading up to Stallone making Rocky? If they have then that is the source to use, if not then it probably doesn't belong. GB fan 14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC) If the article says it is specifically allowed for Wikipedia use, OF COURSE then it is OK for wikipedia to use it. I have made many edits from anonymous accounts with the simple "OK for Wikipedia Use". Nevertheless in spirit of love and compassion I have put explicitly for ANYONE. Your next "problem" being that it is a personal website and therefore the source is not reliable. If you looked closer you would see that the source is not only clearly cited on the website but also when I made the wikipedia post. It starts at 16 minutes from an episode of Inside the Actors Studio (posted on the myjourneytoselfactualization and as a source on the article I edited) where stallone HIMSELF recounts the story i inserted. I even went through the trouble of inserting a link where the video skips to where he recounts his story. There was simply no website I found that transcribed the story so I MANUALLY transcribed the story. Imagine my frustration when someone removes my work that I put in the hopes it would inspire someone. You are quick to remove peoples hard work but not you cannot and SHOULD NOT do that without looking at what you are deleting more closely. Deleting something or reverting it takes 5 seconds, going through the time to find it, write it, make it, and then share it takes MUCH longer. The post is explictly OK'd for wikipedia use, it is from a "reliable source", and I have spent too much time sharing this story that I wanted to share in a spirit that has now been heinously trodden on. PLEASE REVERT MY EDITS BACK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namsu22 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I have restored the edits so they are visible now that the copyright issues have been resolved. I still do not believe the source of this information is a reliable source but that is not a reason for the information to be deleted from the history. If you believe my interpretation of the copyright rules are wrong you can ask someone else for their opinion, a possible place to ask is Wikipedia:Copyright questions. If you want to ask someone about reliable sources a good place to ask is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. GB fan 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Sylvester Stallone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 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. Still a personal and promotional website. Youtube is not RS. Youtube excerpt may be copyvio in itself. Please do not restore. Your edit has multiple issues including conflict-of-interest. Please address them in the article talkpage instead of edit-warring. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process. Before creating a 3O request, please discuss the matter at the pertinent article's Talk page. Doniago (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The issues with your edit

Hi Namsu22. I will try to explain what the issues are regarding your edit at Sylvester Stallone. The way I see the deal is as follows: You saw an interview on youtube concerning Stallone and then you wrote about it on your personal website. Now you want to transfer your personal observations of the youtube material from your website into the Stallone article. First, we don't need your website to do that. Another editor can watch the same interview on youtube and write a summary of the interview without needing to refer to your website. Your personal summary/transcription which you host on your website is not needed and it is not even neutrally worded. Second the youtube material may well be copyrighted so we may not be able to use the youtube link as a reference. That would be a copyright violation. Third, the interview is a primary source and as such it is preferred that a reliable secondary source be used instead. As you see I am not even mentioning the conflict of interest which you may have in trying to promote your website. There are enough reasons to oppose inclusion of your proposed edit and links already. I don't need to add COI. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)