Wordizm
November 2011
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gold Dome, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KennethSides (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kenneth, My apologies in advance if is this not the correct format or form to answer your above statements. Actually, the "vandalism" is removal of material that has no business being on wiki as it does not contribute factual information in a fair and unbiased manner. I would ask, as a representative of the Gold Dome, for you to please read through the material that has been repeatedly removed from the Gold Dome Wikipedia, and let me know if I am in error in simply removing the defamatory commentary and should instead pursue other means of having the page cleared of this material. ~Lori Zwermann, Wordizm
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! KennethSides (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Wordizm. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gold Dome, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gold Dome with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
edit
Message added 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies to you if I am wrong about the material removed. I do have some suggestions to make about how to get your information in the Gold Dome. I suggest that you discuss on the article's talk page Talk:Gold Dome the information you want to add (or remove) and the sources for that information, like newspaper or other unbiased sources. (As you know, you must provide verification (WP:V and WP:RS)). Personal information isn't enough. If no one disagrees, or if there is consensus that you are right, you can change the article.
I'm willing to help you out in any way I can. Please let me know how I can help out.
Best wishes,
KennethSides (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kenneth,
Thank you so much for trying to help. I'm so frustrated with the situation here and didn't know what to do about it.
See, the issue wasn't me ADDING material, it was removing (unnotated) material that is slanderous in nature against the owner of the Gold Dome. In fact, it's worse than that because the user who made the additions: Drirenelam is NOT Dr. Irene Lam who is the owner of the Gold Dome. I work for Dr. Lam and manage her PR and she does not have a Wiki account. So, I guess this is also possibly a case of impersonation? Anyway, as I said also to user ItsZippy, this is quite likely an account set up by her previous tenant, though I can't go into details about the issue Dr. Lam had with them, because there is a pending court case that includes something similar to what is going on here with the Wiki. As you can guess, opening dialog isn't to work for us. Any other ideas? I don't want to create an "issue" of it, but I'm sure you can see that I'll have to find a way to get this resolved. (sucks that I've been working with Wiki all this time and this person comes along and makes it a problem)Wordizm (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Lori Zwermann, Wordizm
- Yes. I was noticing that as I looked through the article. Since Dr. Irene Lam is (presumably a living person -WP:BLP - nothing negative can be in the article about her unless it is VERY WELL REVERENCED by reliable sources. Hence it should be instantly removed on that basis. You should note this on the article talk page and then remove it from the article with the edit summary "Per talkpage re BLP". Please read biographies of living persons. The same justification exists for non biographical articles also. Living persons should not have inaccurate information about them in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued.
- If you continue to have trouble with this issue, you can bring it up on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get some help and support. Best, KennethSides (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your clarification and assistance. Wordizm (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Blessings, Lori Zwermann Wordizm
Talkback
edit Message added 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You must be very careful not to edit the article directly without gaining consensus first, since you are involved with the organisation and have a conflict of interest (COI). I suggest that you back off for a while, perhaps editing other articles where you are neutral. Meanwhile, look for reliable sources to use in updating the article. Everything to do with HUD is complex and cannot easily be explained.
You will have to get admin support if you think sockpuppets are involved. There is a noticeboard for reporting such problems, once you have enough evidence. But you must be careful to be neutral (WP:NPOV) yourself.
I urge you to take a break and get interested in other articles.
Best wishes, KennethSides (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I spent some time looking for references but couldn't find much. I rewrote and reorganised the article a little. (Feel free to correct, change, reorganize, etc.) I took the specific person out of the article, as it is really an ownership group, of which she is head, that has responsibility for the building.
Also I removed some of the negativity of the City Counsel taking over the HUD payments, as they did so voluntarily probably because they realised the value of the building as a cultural asset. And that kind of thing is happening all over the US, so it is not unusual in these economic times.
I moved the description of its current activities to another section. Probably you can rewrite what its current state is, as the most recent ref I could find was the 2007 news article.[1] Probably the Gold Dome website is a good enough reference for that.
Best wishes, KennethSides (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Kenneth,
Once again, thank you. Since I do have connections with the Gold Dome and am more than a bit enthusiastic about the building, I have tried very very hard to maintain an unbiased and "facts only" feel with any of my additions and updates to the page. You have been a tremendous help here and I owe you big time.
Blessings! Wordizm (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Lori Zwermann
- Please be very careful in any edits you make and keep in mind User:ItsZippy's advice from above. KennethSides (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)