User talk:Jay-Sebastos

Wikipedia

I was a University Lecturer for 15 years, I have published many books - I have to fight to publish them. I have to justify what I say - not just some website that agrees with me. What right, qualifications, do these Wikipedia editors/reverters have to control? I do not say that you are doing this; but I have to ask: what qualifications do you have in your/any field? In mine I have a PhD (from a real university) - I cannot edit an academic article by someone else. You are all fantasists, mostly with a right-wing agenda.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.200.248 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your message. I do not doubt your expertise in your field but unfortunately Wikipedia is not based on expertise. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. That's because it's the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, not just experts. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for original research – it is an encyclopaedia. In other words any information needs to be sourced to published, secondary sources. Of course, this has its drawbacks, but it has also has huge positives – consider that Wikipedia is the 5th (or 4th – can't remember) most popular site on the net. Then compare it with parallel project Citizendium, which stresses academic credentials; it's ranked 286,796. Anyhow, here is not the place to be debating the philosophy of Wikipedia (although it's certainly an interesting debate!) – Wikipedia has already clearly defined its policies. Regarding the article referring to Google Translate, I am going to undo your last change because it did not cite verifiable secondary sources, in keeping with the aforementioned policy. As you accept, encyclopaedias need to be well sourced, which is why I am deleting the information. Again, providing original research on Wikipedia specifically does not count as citing a reliable source. Hope this clears some things up for you! --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jay-Sebastos! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Criticism of Relief India Trust

Hello Jay, Regarding the continuous deletion of the Criticism of Relief_India_Trust using the loophole of no reliable reference, How could a user provide evidence like message log or previous correspondence and/or a screen grab that could be refereed to the point of criticism.

I posted some additional issue of this article's external source of reference on Talk:Relief_India_Trust — Preceding unsigned comment added by DChinu (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing the page of Abdulrahim Abby Farah.

I don't need a citation as i am his grandson and when I edited it I was currently with him. I don't know how i can prove it but if you give me options I will glady do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.167.29 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. The only way you can prove it, is by citing a reliable source to verify these claims. Let me know if you need anymore help. Cheers. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rob

Hi Jay how can I add some genuine content to your page please? I am new to Wikipedia

Regards

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobAsbestos (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I'm not sure I understand? What do you need help in editing? Regards, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ta for the welcome template

I'm well acquainted with the 'pedia though. --78.150.168.248 (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, well let me know if you do need any help! --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

David Coburn article

you should stop reverting now so you don't break 3RR and make things messy. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is pretty clear-cut and 3RR doesn't apply to unsourced additions to BLPs (see WP:3RRBLP). But thanks for the heads-up, as I certainly don't want to be implicated in this. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

BattleToads

Battletoads has become famous for the gamestop prank calls what is wrong with my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.148.31 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Russ martin show

Hi Jay. 1 do you even listen to russ martin. 2 if you do or don't who gives you the rite to fix something a fan adds to HIS ( RUSS MARTIN) page. I suggest replacing what we put — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craizie cracker (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, you do need to understand that it's not your article or my article. I suggest you take a look at WP:OWNER. Wikipedia is run by the consensus of the community which is at the foundation of Wikipedia's policies. Moreover, Wikipedia is not based on whether you listen to a particular song/watch a particular movie/or are in some way acquainted with a particular subject. Wikipedia is base on verifiability. I would be happy for you to add back in the content I deleted, but we need to find a reliable source to backup any claims. This is especially important when matters concern biographies of living persons, as Wikipedia has very stringent criteria in this regard. I would strongly advise you not to add in this material until can provide such a source, as continuously reverting other people's changes without first discussing and rectifying the problems can be deemed edit warring and sanctions can be applied. Do let me know if you need any further help. Best regards, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC).... unfortunately you do have to Listen because if you did you will get all the proof you need to back up any posting or changes that we may make to his Page you can find this proof at Russmartin.fm

russ martin show

ayfortunately Jay you need to listen to the Russ Martin show to get any proof you may need so like I said before replace everything you deleted and leave it alone unless the owner which is Russ Martin complain you can also get any proof from russmartin.fm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craizie cracker (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there again. I'm afraid the only way you can "prove" your assertions, according to Wikipedia's definition, is by attributing them to reliable sources. If it is simply mentioned in a show, I'm afraid as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that does not suffice. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopaedia and so merely a summary of secondary sources, not of primary sources. I suggest you also consult WP:OR. Best regards, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 07:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker (politician)

Why? -- vandalism. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question? Thanks for clarifying. I think my initial thoughts were "Oh, somebody removing positive content about a politician with an IP address registered to the US army". I briefly check out the sources and they looked legit. Probably it could do with some improvement, though I don't think it justifies the IP simply to blank. Not familiar with the source NPR, and some assertions are made as fact when they are just quotations of what the politician said. What are your thoughts? All the best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) :-)

The Walker article is a magnet for vandalism, usually by his enemies. My general opinion is that when an IP editor removes sourced text for no reason, and usually even if there is an ostensible reason/edit summary, I check into it. In this case, and I'm sorry if my terse phrasing was a little disconcerting, I was just pointing out that this is a clear case of vandalism. One cannot always assume good faith. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, one cannot. However, I'm not familiar with the article history in question, which is why I could only assume good faith at the time. All the best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)