I asked questions to try to help you, by having you prove to me that you knew more about policy than I had previously thought. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel bad giving you an oppose. If your RFA fails, would you let me coach you and share with you my thoughts? You have many more edits than me, but I think I could have answered the questions better. Maybe because I spend too much time reading ANI. Congolese fufu ( talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeepday. The question is written to reflect some issues we have had in the relatively recent past with administrators disagreeing on what BLP-risky content to include. Implied is that there is a disagreement between long time contributors who are fully aware of policy over whether or not some material should be included (based on BLP). In this situation, the best step is to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article or the other editor/administrator, and escalate from there to BLP/N.
Your expanded answer also posits that if unreferenced material is in an article and poses concerns relative to WP:BLP an editor should attempt to reference it before removing it - that is incorrect. It should be removed immediately, and returned only if it can be reliably sourced and meets other inclusion guidelines (such as WP:WEIGHT). I frame the question as a disagreement between administrators so that you can assume both parties are fully aware of all of the relevant policies (including WP:V and how it relates to WP:BLP).
The absolute wrong answer would be "I'd restore it and then talk to them." I note you didn't give that answer, but your initial answer actually specified no action you would take. Most !voters are looking for a specific answer to this question, and failing to give that answer can be (and is in your case) a significant problem.
You might refer to
WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff for more information about this issue.
Avruch
talk
14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved to User talk:Jeepday/Archive 3#Don't bite the newbies to provided it a permanent home. The page is on my watch list, make any further comments there for consistency. Jeepday ( talk) 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Re this exchange: It seems to me that after a long series of automated edits, you weren't in the appropriate frame of mind to treat a newish editor in a courteous and helpful way in your initial response, and failed to assume good faith; your wording seems to me to imply that you were assuming the facts were not as stated by the editor, which may be one reason you didn't provide the required helpful advice. What do you think of that exchange now -- particularly your first comment, which begins "Removing content from Wikipedia..."? -- Coppertwig ( talk) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You edited out some crucial phrases about the closed mindedness of Scientific consensus. I fear that if you do not edit them back in, the people of the world will forget that scientists are about as useful as...high oil prices.
Please edit back in the information, for the good of the people of the world.
Thank you,
Empire of Justice
Chief Democratic Officer
Agent R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.13.204 ( talk • contribs)
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjB scribe 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations - feel free to ask me any questions you might have especially if they relate to image or copyright policies. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the re-creation. I wasn't clear that was happening until the second round.
Just to be clear - I need to add to the website, www.inwardoutward.org, the statement "I, Meade Jones Hanna, release the contents of this website under the terms of the GNU free documentation license" Correct?
OR say it in my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meadejh ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, new administrator! If you are interested, maybe ArbCom in a year or two. Spevw ( talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
Just delete the list -categories can serve that purpose. It was only created when it looked like the category was going up for the chop but they saved it -no point in having both ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 09:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Because of overzealous attacks against me by Jehochman, I will no longer be editing the three articles that I was working towards FA status nor Congo articles. Jehochman went on a rampage RFCU. His RFCU claims were disproven and according to another user, he lied about the category.
WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows multiple accounts for segregation and security. The multiple accounts edited separate articles.
A multiple account was necessary because of the controversial nature of User:Profg. Editing about him would bring stalkers to the 3 FA contenders. Edits about User:Profg were never meant to defend him but to point out things that the community was overlooking. The community shouldn’t overlook everything that a user says simply because he is bad. One member of the community said he was seeking a ban just to make it easier to accuse others. These is a diabolical scheme.
What good does is exposing User:HappyBirthdayClubMember? That’s like exposing the identity of Santa Claus. Congolese fufu ( talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar - and thanks for reading the Signpost! enochlau ( talk) 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. No administrative tasks needed to form this group, just know each other so if we need an opinion or want to discuss something, we'll be there for each other. Archtransit ( talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Any that you know about, you are encourged to improve and make the best it can be. If you feel you have expanded it enough, you can add your name to the byline. Also, could you help a litle on this one: User:Jonathan/Where to find help on editing? The Placebo Effect ( talk) 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Whitney Gravel's afd established any sort of consensus against maintaining articles on the spouses of presidential candidates. Several users commenting on the deletion noted that Mike Gravel has no chance of securing his party's nomination, the same may not be true of Ron Paul. Either way, I agree with the basic premise that the notability of article subjects shouldn't be assessed by the availability of coverage for their spouses. Others may disagree, however, and I don't think that the Carol Paul article is a clear candidate for speedy or prod. AfD is the better way to go. Regards, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 09:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I hadn't seen that page but did enjoy it. It didn't occur to me that the editor may be a newcomer as he is registered with an account but I could have been more diplomatic. The incessant assault on this site's neutrality by bigotry, ignorance and prejudice sometimes gets to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.2.135 ( talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I might as well respond to your message on my talk page under this same heading. As I said in my edit summary when reverting the changes again just now, I put maize at the top in accordance with MOS:DP (which I cited in my original cleanup), specifically MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic. Corn redirects to maize, indicating that as Wikipedia sees it, maize IS the primary usage. (Also, the edits I reverted, or at least the original one--I'm not sure about the second--included a number of other changes that I found inexplicable, including rearranging the links, again in violation of the Manual of Style, and describing the town of Corn, Oklahoma as a "conurbation", which I had never seen before and, to be honest, did not think was an actual word until I looked it up just now. At any rate, the article about the town doesn't seem to suggest it's anything but a town, and there aren't any non-conurbation towns called Corn in Oklahoma listed on the disambig page for it to be confused with.)
It also strikes me as a little weird for you to tell someone posting from an anonymous IP, who had no contribution history at all before this incident, not to "bite the newbies", in reference to a registered user who has several hundred edits and who referred repeatedly in her edit summaries to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, a concept that 90+% of Wikipedia users don't seem to be aware of. I'm not offended or anything; as I said, it just seems weird. Propaniac ( talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the user only has one contribution, and that's to their talk page; I'm thinking it was the dynamic IP thing (more info at IP address), as that's happened on my computer before. At least, that's all I can offer up. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed the same problem, reported it at administrators' noticeboard (probably a better idea, since few people look at Wikipedia talk:Special:Ipblocklist), and the link is now fixed. Regards, Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi , I added couple of citations, this car seems very hard to find decent sources, I updated the tag to refimprove also. --— Typ932 T | C 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I'll see if something in Judson & Kauffman's Physical Geology will serve as a reference. -- Cuppysfriend ( talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, I could take your policy on reliable sources more seriously if the material I edited had been reliably sourced. I replaced inaccurate material that had no source with accurate material, for which I also didn't cite a source. I understand if you don't want unsourced material on your site, but all you did was take out my unsourced material and revert back to other unsourced material (which by the way was badly written and inaccurate).
If ever page/fact always has to have a source (and I've seen plenty of pages on the site that don't), then how the hell did the original material get there, and what the hell is it still doing there? It's ridiculous.
I will go back at some point soon and cite some sources - I have every Jefferson Airplane album ever released, a couple of box sets with extensive liner notes, and several books on them, so it won't be a problem, except for the time and trouble I'll have to take to learn how to do it and then do it. And then I'm sure you'll find some "good reason" to remove it anyway. On second thought, maybe I should just start using a real encyclopedia and not this amatuer hour bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.202.82 ( talk) 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Upon closer examination, it appears the Airplane material was not removed - I was confused because I had two messages, an old one about a joke line I inserted in Bono's biography being removed, and then a message about the Airplane stuff which basically just says "cite your sources." I had forgotten all about the Bono thing and after just skimming the message thought the whole thing was one message about the Airplane. My bad. I will go back and cite some reliable sources soon, I promise. Many apologies for the mixup on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.202.82 ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thx. I moved the info outta the lead paragraph. In retrospect perhaps all the info should be in te In the Loop with iVillage page & not at all on Bill's page. It is just that originally the page was a huge advert for iVillage so I wanted them (nbc) to see that we are aware the show is not doing well & they shouldnt dubiously change lie about their show on wiki.
Also thx for being gracious. Other wiki admins need to be like u. 70.108.122.10 ( talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Biophys has already reverted first attempts at correcting the NPOV violations in the article. I made my edits step by step, noting in my edit summaries the reasons. Without comment, he reverted almost all of them. We are not going to get very far at this rate. We are not dealing with a constructive editor who wishes to have a neutral article. I held off trying to make any corrections prior to your intervention, because I new this would happen. Until something is done here from the outside, there is no point in going any further. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I shared your optimism about the direction the article is heading, but at present we now have Muscovite99 reinserting more WP:BLP violations into the article. You can see his lack of balance on this subject rather clearly at this edit. For more on that, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99.
I am also not sure I understand your instructions about what we are going to do. Are you saying that I can now edit the entire "Criticism" section? Because I can assure you, my edits are going to be reverted by Muscovite99. Or are you suggesting I come up with a draft, and present it to you, but not by actually editing the article itself? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 15:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
These reverts occurred after your note... the article was moving in a much more positive direction when you made your comments. Can you let me know whether you would prefer me to stand back and let you handle these reinsertions, or should I feel free to revert them myself? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you encourage Muscovite99 to stop deleted the NPOV tage, and to stop reinserting the text you had removed. For more on him, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we had a deal with Frjohnwhiteford that we both stop editing this article for a few days and that everyone will work on his own portion of text. That is exactly what I am doing. But Frjohnwhiteford started edit warring there with another user. Does it meant that the deal is off? Or perhaps your inetervention is needed? I would prefer if everyone followed the agreement. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Biophys has now again removed the NPOV tag, and reinserted the comments you removed. He has gone ahead and inserted a new section. And now we have a new user Ellol, who has unilateral removed defenses of Patriarch Alexei. This is the sort of contentious POV pushing I have been having to deal with. I will await further instructions from you before taking any further action. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a second opinion, I should have a response in a few hours. Jeepday ( talk) 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you clarify whether the article is in fact protected (or will be)? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Moscovite99 has again reverted your deletion of the original research regarding the nuns and the canons. See this. I don't think there is any question of whether or not he understands what he is doing. This is about the 3rd time he has done it since you first removed it. He has also done numerous edits to the text, making it more biased than before. Can we either get a block on him, or protect the page? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Patriarch Alexius II#Marriage. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article that argues for the private ownership of roads http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf . Presumably there are at least some people who like public ownership: does this no qualtify as a disagreement? Larklight ( talk) 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, failed to understand your message. Do you mind him being referred to as Ridiger when he was twentysomething of age? Alexius is his monastic name and when he was being wed he did not have this name in this form and one does not refer to adults by their first names alone. Muscovite99 ( talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeepday. I just wanted to notify you of this AN/I thread involving Muscovite99. As your attempt to mediate the content dispute was recently brought up, some input from you might help shed some light. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeepday. I wouldn't say the AN/I thread was resolved or settled, so much as went stale. However, as you are taking the larger issue in hand (I like what you're proposing at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II and hope it succeeds), if you just keep an eye on M99's civility then my purpose will have been accomplished. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 15:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Wizardman 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
hey, i got a message from you saying something about citing references when editing a bevis and butt-head article. However, I haven't edited anything on that page (nor even visited it.) I've had a few messages like that from other people (that i've edited a page when I haven't.) I don't know if it's my IP address or yours, but just a heads-up in case there's someone with malicious intent with access to your computer/files/IP address/whatever-else. Figured you should know, in case someone's done something with your stuff. Hope this helps!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.191.80 ( talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Tax slavery was deleted. In the future, could you notify the WikiProjects ( WP:TAX) associated with the article. I don't see any comments from the common tax editors in Wikipedia and nothing was posted to the project. I don't know which way I would have voted but it wasn't cool that it just got deleted with a nom and a weak delete, without even telling the group. I can't monitor all the tax articles on my watchlist... Morphh (talk) 13:17, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern. It seemed pointed rather than genuine good faith editing at the moment, but I'm aware of WP:BITE and will try to be more careful, at second glance I think I was reading too much into that edit. Triona ( talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You put an Afd template at Toad (color) but you didn't create the Afd page. Why?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for this statement? Jeepday ( talk) 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your messages on my talk page; Sorry if I have erased a part of the comments on 'Bunjevci' discussion page, it was just a repeated part of one of my previous comments(exactly same as the one following it, I saw it twice, so I erased the first part of the double article). What I am doing now is:, as I promissed a few weeks ago, I will erase (or change) all the most offensive words I was using in some of my comments on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia. I am doing it now, and will also report all the offensive language from a few persons used towards me on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia, with recquesting for it to be erased as well. Thanks for your observations and all the best. Pozdrav 24.86.110.10 ( talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for letting me know. Be sure to use a good edit summary especially with anything that could be considered counter to Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments. Welcome to Wikipedia. Jeepday ( talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read carefully your posts to me, looking at my first edit you referred to.
"Your recent edits here
Diff are not constructive. The are the same edits that have all ready been reverted as not helpful to the article and violate the ideal of the
WP:RRR. If you have any questions or if I can be of any help please leave a note on my talk page.
Jeepday (
talk)
21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I fail to understand what you meant in your original post. As to the alleged WP:BLP violation, you are entitled to have your opinion, but this is just your opinion which i disagree with. Nothing of what i added, in my view, violates any WP requirements. I had been asked to contribute some material to an article that obviously was fundamentally uninformed and uneducating. I have no intention to engage in edit wars generally and in this case especially -- never ever deleted other people's material. Apropos the article in question, knowing the subject all too well first-hand, it is abhorrent to me, therefore i shall very happy to wash my hands of it. Muscovite99 ( talk) 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome. I've been here a while, though, so you're a little late. What article is it you're refering to as requiring refence? Are you refering to the textual addition I made to the road article? I would assume that there are verifiable waterways on the map that have been called roads for centuries, ie Hampton Roads, on which there is an article right here in wikipedia, to which a link was provided, should be sufficient verification. Are you suggesting that this is not sufficient? I'm open to persuasion.
Aodhdubh ( talk) 14:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason I am stating those facts are I don't believe I was given a fair warning/revoke. It was immediate without any chance at redemption. Undeath ( talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What specifically would you like added to the Scott Horton(editor) article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsgods ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am responding here, because in addition to the points that I made on the talk page for the article, I want to make a few points more directly to you. You say that my logic is flawed, please help to discover my error by telling me exactly where it is. You cited this evidence: Diff, and are arguing that I endorsed. If you read my edit which you cited, I stated "What follows is typical of the tabloid journalism found in Moscow News..." That is not an endorsement, in my opinion.
Do you doubt what I say about the fact that there is no canonical violation when a bishop applies economia in a pastoral situation, even when the result is that the action is contrary to the letter of the canons? Economia is applied in the Church every day, and we would have hardly a clergyman in the Church, or a laymen in good standing if we strictly applied all the canons to the letter. For example, the canons say that before someone is consecrated a bishop, he must know the Psalter by heart. There was a time when it was common for monastics to know the Psalter by heart. I have never met a bishop who knew the Psalter by heart, because that is no longer the case. Circumstances often require a pastoral application of the canons.
You suggested I needed to learn to compromise. The edit you cited was an example of my trying to do just that. In my edit, I suggested a form of the text which would have been accurate and fair. I left in the original cited source, because I am not aware of any other source on the subject, and was trying to compromise with the previous edit. There is no doubt that Patriarch Alexei was married and divorced. I have seen the pictures of the wedding. I have long held a very low opinion of Moscow News, and for a number of reasons... having seen too many examples of their style of journalism. But since I know the basic facts that I left in the edit to be true, I was not inclined to quibble over the source, if that was all the source was used for. Furthermore, there really are no other sources on the subject that are available online in either Russian or English. Every article I could find was either a simple cut and paste job, or simply repeating the basic account given by MN, and citing them as the source.
Even if we accept as a given that the Moscow News is every bit as reliable a source as the New York Times, just for the sake of discussion, the New Times may be a reliable source for verifying some fact say in the life of Albert Einstein... however, if a New Times article asserted something erroneous about Einstein's theory of relativity, it would not be a reliable source... because the New Times is not a scientific journal, it is a news paper, with reporters that may or may not always understand every subject they touch upon. In Wikipedia:Attribution, it states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (Emphasis in the original quote). Evgeny Sidorenko is not an expert in Canon Law, Church History, Pastoral Theology, or Theology. He is therefore not a reliable source to pontificate about the appropriateness of Patriarch Alexei's marriage vis-a-vis Orthodox Canon law and Tradition. While a reporter may be well qualified to dig up the basic facts of a marriage of some public figure, and report on them, they are not reliable sources on theological or ecclesiastical matters.
I would not be arguing these points with you to the extent that I am were it not for the fact that you continue to question my motives and good faith for making comments on the talk page. Had I subverting your decision by making unilateral edits, I would expect you to reach such conclusions, but even if my arguments are flawed, you have no cause to question my motives here. You have assumed good faith in the face of a lot worse from some of the other editors... who actually were attempting to subvert your decisions by making unilateral edits. I don't understand why you would do so in the case of someone who is simply advocating a particular opinion on how best to handle a particular issue, but attempting to do so within the process that you have laid out for handling such things.
I would also again point out that you had said two reliable sources would be necessary in cases of controversy, and so far I have not heard your explanation for why this has changed. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeepday, could you clarify what about the above referenced source added recently by Muscovite99 that you find an acceptable primary source? Are you referring to the photos, or to the "unexpurgated version" of the article? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Signed Jeepday ( talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
John Thanks for your comments above. I don't have a problem with disagreement, in the future I am sure we will both modify our approach. I only have one expectation, that at some point the intervention of an outsider will not be required to settle disputes on the article Patriarch Alexius II, everything else is interpretation of current policy. As for you doing something I don't agree with (presumably on the article), It does not matter if I agree with what you do to the article (I am not even really watching), what matters is if the other editors agree. My part is to help you all through impasses until you can do it on your own. Jeepday ( talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Re Horn of Gondor - yes I have issues - that image is under copyright and does not fall under fair use - note fair use does not include 'to add a nice illustration' to an article - these things are other peoples intellectual property - and you have no right to use them here. I recommend that you read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth#On_the_subject_of_images and continue the discussion there if you disagree with me re-removing that image.
I would like to draw youe attention to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images for when images should be included.
Specifically if the image itself was being discused and that could be a reason to use. Using other peoples copyrighted work as illustations is precisely the reason copyright laws exist and constitutes theft. 77.86.8.83 ( talk) 16:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mazda T platform, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.carluvers.com/cars/Mazda_T_platform. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 20:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Mazda T platform, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Jeepday (
talk)
05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There are vandalism-cases on Dora The Explorer. It seems that there are many people with hatred against the show, me included, but I do not vandalize the article, and neither do the other Wikipedians who hate the aforementioned show. However, it seems to me that those who hate the show but do not vandalize it want to keep good reputations and their dignity so they do not vandalize anything. However, I am more worried about those who do NOT have the aforementioned traits. Therefore, I ask that you guard the article mentioned above. Thank you. (Please reply on my talk page.) Yours truly, Pokemon Buffy Titan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemon Buffy Titan ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message and advice. Apropos the source, i haven't done the textological comparative analysis, but there does not really seem to be much substantive difference between the versions and our paragraph does not deviate in any way from what both sources say. As for the style of referencing, i did use those templates you suggested, but came to try to do without them because in heavily-referenced articles they create a nearly impenetrable jungle when you need to do another edit. Muscovite99 ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jeepday, your UAA report requested a message if the report was declined. I declined it because the username itself doesn't really present a problem. Someone else deleted the userpage. It struck me as someone just trying to be funny; I don't think the user was really trying to be offensive, and I wouldn't have deleted it, but it's done. As long as he doesn't start creating "Robisim" articles in mainspace, I don't think it's a huge cause for concern. Take care. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked questions to try to help you, by having you prove to me that you knew more about policy than I had previously thought. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel bad giving you an oppose. If your RFA fails, would you let me coach you and share with you my thoughts? You have many more edits than me, but I think I could have answered the questions better. Maybe because I spend too much time reading ANI. Congolese fufu ( talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeepday. The question is written to reflect some issues we have had in the relatively recent past with administrators disagreeing on what BLP-risky content to include. Implied is that there is a disagreement between long time contributors who are fully aware of policy over whether or not some material should be included (based on BLP). In this situation, the best step is to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article or the other editor/administrator, and escalate from there to BLP/N.
Your expanded answer also posits that if unreferenced material is in an article and poses concerns relative to WP:BLP an editor should attempt to reference it before removing it - that is incorrect. It should be removed immediately, and returned only if it can be reliably sourced and meets other inclusion guidelines (such as WP:WEIGHT). I frame the question as a disagreement between administrators so that you can assume both parties are fully aware of all of the relevant policies (including WP:V and how it relates to WP:BLP).
The absolute wrong answer would be "I'd restore it and then talk to them." I note you didn't give that answer, but your initial answer actually specified no action you would take. Most !voters are looking for a specific answer to this question, and failing to give that answer can be (and is in your case) a significant problem.
You might refer to
WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff for more information about this issue.
Avruch
talk
14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved to User talk:Jeepday/Archive 3#Don't bite the newbies to provided it a permanent home. The page is on my watch list, make any further comments there for consistency. Jeepday ( talk) 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Re this exchange: It seems to me that after a long series of automated edits, you weren't in the appropriate frame of mind to treat a newish editor in a courteous and helpful way in your initial response, and failed to assume good faith; your wording seems to me to imply that you were assuming the facts were not as stated by the editor, which may be one reason you didn't provide the required helpful advice. What do you think of that exchange now -- particularly your first comment, which begins "Removing content from Wikipedia..."? -- Coppertwig ( talk) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You edited out some crucial phrases about the closed mindedness of Scientific consensus. I fear that if you do not edit them back in, the people of the world will forget that scientists are about as useful as...high oil prices.
Please edit back in the information, for the good of the people of the world.
Thank you,
Empire of Justice
Chief Democratic Officer
Agent R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.13.204 ( talk • contribs)
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjB scribe 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations - feel free to ask me any questions you might have especially if they relate to image or copyright policies. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the re-creation. I wasn't clear that was happening until the second round.
Just to be clear - I need to add to the website, www.inwardoutward.org, the statement "I, Meade Jones Hanna, release the contents of this website under the terms of the GNU free documentation license" Correct?
OR say it in my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meadejh ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, new administrator! If you are interested, maybe ArbCom in a year or two. Spevw ( talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
Just delete the list -categories can serve that purpose. It was only created when it looked like the category was going up for the chop but they saved it -no point in having both ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 09:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Because of overzealous attacks against me by Jehochman, I will no longer be editing the three articles that I was working towards FA status nor Congo articles. Jehochman went on a rampage RFCU. His RFCU claims were disproven and according to another user, he lied about the category.
WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows multiple accounts for segregation and security. The multiple accounts edited separate articles.
A multiple account was necessary because of the controversial nature of User:Profg. Editing about him would bring stalkers to the 3 FA contenders. Edits about User:Profg were never meant to defend him but to point out things that the community was overlooking. The community shouldn’t overlook everything that a user says simply because he is bad. One member of the community said he was seeking a ban just to make it easier to accuse others. These is a diabolical scheme.
What good does is exposing User:HappyBirthdayClubMember? That’s like exposing the identity of Santa Claus. Congolese fufu ( talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar - and thanks for reading the Signpost! enochlau ( talk) 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. No administrative tasks needed to form this group, just know each other so if we need an opinion or want to discuss something, we'll be there for each other. Archtransit ( talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Any that you know about, you are encourged to improve and make the best it can be. If you feel you have expanded it enough, you can add your name to the byline. Also, could you help a litle on this one: User:Jonathan/Where to find help on editing? The Placebo Effect ( talk) 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Whitney Gravel's afd established any sort of consensus against maintaining articles on the spouses of presidential candidates. Several users commenting on the deletion noted that Mike Gravel has no chance of securing his party's nomination, the same may not be true of Ron Paul. Either way, I agree with the basic premise that the notability of article subjects shouldn't be assessed by the availability of coverage for their spouses. Others may disagree, however, and I don't think that the Carol Paul article is a clear candidate for speedy or prod. AfD is the better way to go. Regards, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 09:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I hadn't seen that page but did enjoy it. It didn't occur to me that the editor may be a newcomer as he is registered with an account but I could have been more diplomatic. The incessant assault on this site's neutrality by bigotry, ignorance and prejudice sometimes gets to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.2.135 ( talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I might as well respond to your message on my talk page under this same heading. As I said in my edit summary when reverting the changes again just now, I put maize at the top in accordance with MOS:DP (which I cited in my original cleanup), specifically MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic. Corn redirects to maize, indicating that as Wikipedia sees it, maize IS the primary usage. (Also, the edits I reverted, or at least the original one--I'm not sure about the second--included a number of other changes that I found inexplicable, including rearranging the links, again in violation of the Manual of Style, and describing the town of Corn, Oklahoma as a "conurbation", which I had never seen before and, to be honest, did not think was an actual word until I looked it up just now. At any rate, the article about the town doesn't seem to suggest it's anything but a town, and there aren't any non-conurbation towns called Corn in Oklahoma listed on the disambig page for it to be confused with.)
It also strikes me as a little weird for you to tell someone posting from an anonymous IP, who had no contribution history at all before this incident, not to "bite the newbies", in reference to a registered user who has several hundred edits and who referred repeatedly in her edit summaries to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, a concept that 90+% of Wikipedia users don't seem to be aware of. I'm not offended or anything; as I said, it just seems weird. Propaniac ( talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the user only has one contribution, and that's to their talk page; I'm thinking it was the dynamic IP thing (more info at IP address), as that's happened on my computer before. At least, that's all I can offer up. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed the same problem, reported it at administrators' noticeboard (probably a better idea, since few people look at Wikipedia talk:Special:Ipblocklist), and the link is now fixed. Regards, Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi , I added couple of citations, this car seems very hard to find decent sources, I updated the tag to refimprove also. --— Typ932 T | C 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I'll see if something in Judson & Kauffman's Physical Geology will serve as a reference. -- Cuppysfriend ( talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, I could take your policy on reliable sources more seriously if the material I edited had been reliably sourced. I replaced inaccurate material that had no source with accurate material, for which I also didn't cite a source. I understand if you don't want unsourced material on your site, but all you did was take out my unsourced material and revert back to other unsourced material (which by the way was badly written and inaccurate).
If ever page/fact always has to have a source (and I've seen plenty of pages on the site that don't), then how the hell did the original material get there, and what the hell is it still doing there? It's ridiculous.
I will go back at some point soon and cite some sources - I have every Jefferson Airplane album ever released, a couple of box sets with extensive liner notes, and several books on them, so it won't be a problem, except for the time and trouble I'll have to take to learn how to do it and then do it. And then I'm sure you'll find some "good reason" to remove it anyway. On second thought, maybe I should just start using a real encyclopedia and not this amatuer hour bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.202.82 ( talk) 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Upon closer examination, it appears the Airplane material was not removed - I was confused because I had two messages, an old one about a joke line I inserted in Bono's biography being removed, and then a message about the Airplane stuff which basically just says "cite your sources." I had forgotten all about the Bono thing and after just skimming the message thought the whole thing was one message about the Airplane. My bad. I will go back and cite some reliable sources soon, I promise. Many apologies for the mixup on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.202.82 ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thx. I moved the info outta the lead paragraph. In retrospect perhaps all the info should be in te In the Loop with iVillage page & not at all on Bill's page. It is just that originally the page was a huge advert for iVillage so I wanted them (nbc) to see that we are aware the show is not doing well & they shouldnt dubiously change lie about their show on wiki.
Also thx for being gracious. Other wiki admins need to be like u. 70.108.122.10 ( talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Biophys has already reverted first attempts at correcting the NPOV violations in the article. I made my edits step by step, noting in my edit summaries the reasons. Without comment, he reverted almost all of them. We are not going to get very far at this rate. We are not dealing with a constructive editor who wishes to have a neutral article. I held off trying to make any corrections prior to your intervention, because I new this would happen. Until something is done here from the outside, there is no point in going any further. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I shared your optimism about the direction the article is heading, but at present we now have Muscovite99 reinserting more WP:BLP violations into the article. You can see his lack of balance on this subject rather clearly at this edit. For more on that, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99.
I am also not sure I understand your instructions about what we are going to do. Are you saying that I can now edit the entire "Criticism" section? Because I can assure you, my edits are going to be reverted by Muscovite99. Or are you suggesting I come up with a draft, and present it to you, but not by actually editing the article itself? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 15:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
These reverts occurred after your note... the article was moving in a much more positive direction when you made your comments. Can you let me know whether you would prefer me to stand back and let you handle these reinsertions, or should I feel free to revert them myself? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you encourage Muscovite99 to stop deleted the NPOV tage, and to stop reinserting the text you had removed. For more on him, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we had a deal with Frjohnwhiteford that we both stop editing this article for a few days and that everyone will work on his own portion of text. That is exactly what I am doing. But Frjohnwhiteford started edit warring there with another user. Does it meant that the deal is off? Or perhaps your inetervention is needed? I would prefer if everyone followed the agreement. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Biophys has now again removed the NPOV tag, and reinserted the comments you removed. He has gone ahead and inserted a new section. And now we have a new user Ellol, who has unilateral removed defenses of Patriarch Alexei. This is the sort of contentious POV pushing I have been having to deal with. I will await further instructions from you before taking any further action. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a second opinion, I should have a response in a few hours. Jeepday ( talk) 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you clarify whether the article is in fact protected (or will be)? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Moscovite99 has again reverted your deletion of the original research regarding the nuns and the canons. See this. I don't think there is any question of whether or not he understands what he is doing. This is about the 3rd time he has done it since you first removed it. He has also done numerous edits to the text, making it more biased than before. Can we either get a block on him, or protect the page? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Patriarch Alexius II#Marriage. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article that argues for the private ownership of roads http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf . Presumably there are at least some people who like public ownership: does this no qualtify as a disagreement? Larklight ( talk) 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, failed to understand your message. Do you mind him being referred to as Ridiger when he was twentysomething of age? Alexius is his monastic name and when he was being wed he did not have this name in this form and one does not refer to adults by their first names alone. Muscovite99 ( talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeepday. I just wanted to notify you of this AN/I thread involving Muscovite99. As your attempt to mediate the content dispute was recently brought up, some input from you might help shed some light. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeepday. I wouldn't say the AN/I thread was resolved or settled, so much as went stale. However, as you are taking the larger issue in hand (I like what you're proposing at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II and hope it succeeds), if you just keep an eye on M99's civility then my purpose will have been accomplished. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 15:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Wizardman 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
hey, i got a message from you saying something about citing references when editing a bevis and butt-head article. However, I haven't edited anything on that page (nor even visited it.) I've had a few messages like that from other people (that i've edited a page when I haven't.) I don't know if it's my IP address or yours, but just a heads-up in case there's someone with malicious intent with access to your computer/files/IP address/whatever-else. Figured you should know, in case someone's done something with your stuff. Hope this helps!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.191.80 ( talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Tax slavery was deleted. In the future, could you notify the WikiProjects ( WP:TAX) associated with the article. I don't see any comments from the common tax editors in Wikipedia and nothing was posted to the project. I don't know which way I would have voted but it wasn't cool that it just got deleted with a nom and a weak delete, without even telling the group. I can't monitor all the tax articles on my watchlist... Morphh (talk) 13:17, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern. It seemed pointed rather than genuine good faith editing at the moment, but I'm aware of WP:BITE and will try to be more careful, at second glance I think I was reading too much into that edit. Triona ( talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You put an Afd template at Toad (color) but you didn't create the Afd page. Why?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for this statement? Jeepday ( talk) 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your messages on my talk page; Sorry if I have erased a part of the comments on 'Bunjevci' discussion page, it was just a repeated part of one of my previous comments(exactly same as the one following it, I saw it twice, so I erased the first part of the double article). What I am doing now is:, as I promissed a few weeks ago, I will erase (or change) all the most offensive words I was using in some of my comments on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia. I am doing it now, and will also report all the offensive language from a few persons used towards me on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia, with recquesting for it to be erased as well. Thanks for your observations and all the best. Pozdrav 24.86.110.10 ( talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for letting me know. Be sure to use a good edit summary especially with anything that could be considered counter to Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments. Welcome to Wikipedia. Jeepday ( talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read carefully your posts to me, looking at my first edit you referred to.
"Your recent edits here
Diff are not constructive. The are the same edits that have all ready been reverted as not helpful to the article and violate the ideal of the
WP:RRR. If you have any questions or if I can be of any help please leave a note on my talk page.
Jeepday (
talk)
21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I fail to understand what you meant in your original post. As to the alleged WP:BLP violation, you are entitled to have your opinion, but this is just your opinion which i disagree with. Nothing of what i added, in my view, violates any WP requirements. I had been asked to contribute some material to an article that obviously was fundamentally uninformed and uneducating. I have no intention to engage in edit wars generally and in this case especially -- never ever deleted other people's material. Apropos the article in question, knowing the subject all too well first-hand, it is abhorrent to me, therefore i shall very happy to wash my hands of it. Muscovite99 ( talk) 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome. I've been here a while, though, so you're a little late. What article is it you're refering to as requiring refence? Are you refering to the textual addition I made to the road article? I would assume that there are verifiable waterways on the map that have been called roads for centuries, ie Hampton Roads, on which there is an article right here in wikipedia, to which a link was provided, should be sufficient verification. Are you suggesting that this is not sufficient? I'm open to persuasion.
Aodhdubh ( talk) 14:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason I am stating those facts are I don't believe I was given a fair warning/revoke. It was immediate without any chance at redemption. Undeath ( talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What specifically would you like added to the Scott Horton(editor) article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsgods ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am responding here, because in addition to the points that I made on the talk page for the article, I want to make a few points more directly to you. You say that my logic is flawed, please help to discover my error by telling me exactly where it is. You cited this evidence: Diff, and are arguing that I endorsed. If you read my edit which you cited, I stated "What follows is typical of the tabloid journalism found in Moscow News..." That is not an endorsement, in my opinion.
Do you doubt what I say about the fact that there is no canonical violation when a bishop applies economia in a pastoral situation, even when the result is that the action is contrary to the letter of the canons? Economia is applied in the Church every day, and we would have hardly a clergyman in the Church, or a laymen in good standing if we strictly applied all the canons to the letter. For example, the canons say that before someone is consecrated a bishop, he must know the Psalter by heart. There was a time when it was common for monastics to know the Psalter by heart. I have never met a bishop who knew the Psalter by heart, because that is no longer the case. Circumstances often require a pastoral application of the canons.
You suggested I needed to learn to compromise. The edit you cited was an example of my trying to do just that. In my edit, I suggested a form of the text which would have been accurate and fair. I left in the original cited source, because I am not aware of any other source on the subject, and was trying to compromise with the previous edit. There is no doubt that Patriarch Alexei was married and divorced. I have seen the pictures of the wedding. I have long held a very low opinion of Moscow News, and for a number of reasons... having seen too many examples of their style of journalism. But since I know the basic facts that I left in the edit to be true, I was not inclined to quibble over the source, if that was all the source was used for. Furthermore, there really are no other sources on the subject that are available online in either Russian or English. Every article I could find was either a simple cut and paste job, or simply repeating the basic account given by MN, and citing them as the source.
Even if we accept as a given that the Moscow News is every bit as reliable a source as the New York Times, just for the sake of discussion, the New Times may be a reliable source for verifying some fact say in the life of Albert Einstein... however, if a New Times article asserted something erroneous about Einstein's theory of relativity, it would not be a reliable source... because the New Times is not a scientific journal, it is a news paper, with reporters that may or may not always understand every subject they touch upon. In Wikipedia:Attribution, it states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (Emphasis in the original quote). Evgeny Sidorenko is not an expert in Canon Law, Church History, Pastoral Theology, or Theology. He is therefore not a reliable source to pontificate about the appropriateness of Patriarch Alexei's marriage vis-a-vis Orthodox Canon law and Tradition. While a reporter may be well qualified to dig up the basic facts of a marriage of some public figure, and report on them, they are not reliable sources on theological or ecclesiastical matters.
I would not be arguing these points with you to the extent that I am were it not for the fact that you continue to question my motives and good faith for making comments on the talk page. Had I subverting your decision by making unilateral edits, I would expect you to reach such conclusions, but even if my arguments are flawed, you have no cause to question my motives here. You have assumed good faith in the face of a lot worse from some of the other editors... who actually were attempting to subvert your decisions by making unilateral edits. I don't understand why you would do so in the case of someone who is simply advocating a particular opinion on how best to handle a particular issue, but attempting to do so within the process that you have laid out for handling such things.
I would also again point out that you had said two reliable sources would be necessary in cases of controversy, and so far I have not heard your explanation for why this has changed. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeepday, could you clarify what about the above referenced source added recently by Muscovite99 that you find an acceptable primary source? Are you referring to the photos, or to the "unexpurgated version" of the article? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Signed Jeepday ( talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
John Thanks for your comments above. I don't have a problem with disagreement, in the future I am sure we will both modify our approach. I only have one expectation, that at some point the intervention of an outsider will not be required to settle disputes on the article Patriarch Alexius II, everything else is interpretation of current policy. As for you doing something I don't agree with (presumably on the article), It does not matter if I agree with what you do to the article (I am not even really watching), what matters is if the other editors agree. My part is to help you all through impasses until you can do it on your own. Jeepday ( talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Re Horn of Gondor - yes I have issues - that image is under copyright and does not fall under fair use - note fair use does not include 'to add a nice illustration' to an article - these things are other peoples intellectual property - and you have no right to use them here. I recommend that you read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth#On_the_subject_of_images and continue the discussion there if you disagree with me re-removing that image.
I would like to draw youe attention to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images for when images should be included.
Specifically if the image itself was being discused and that could be a reason to use. Using other peoples copyrighted work as illustations is precisely the reason copyright laws exist and constitutes theft. 77.86.8.83 ( talk) 16:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mazda T platform, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.carluvers.com/cars/Mazda_T_platform. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 20:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Mazda T platform, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Jeepday (
talk)
05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There are vandalism-cases on Dora The Explorer. It seems that there are many people with hatred against the show, me included, but I do not vandalize the article, and neither do the other Wikipedians who hate the aforementioned show. However, it seems to me that those who hate the show but do not vandalize it want to keep good reputations and their dignity so they do not vandalize anything. However, I am more worried about those who do NOT have the aforementioned traits. Therefore, I ask that you guard the article mentioned above. Thank you. (Please reply on my talk page.) Yours truly, Pokemon Buffy Titan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemon Buffy Titan ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message and advice. Apropos the source, i haven't done the textological comparative analysis, but there does not really seem to be much substantive difference between the versions and our paragraph does not deviate in any way from what both sources say. As for the style of referencing, i did use those templates you suggested, but came to try to do without them because in heavily-referenced articles they create a nearly impenetrable jungle when you need to do another edit. Muscovite99 ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jeepday, your UAA report requested a message if the report was declined. I declined it because the username itself doesn't really present a problem. Someone else deleted the userpage. It struck me as someone just trying to be funny; I don't think the user was really trying to be offensive, and I wouldn't have deleted it, but it's done. As long as he doesn't start creating "Robisim" articles in mainspace, I don't think it's a huge cause for concern. Take care. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)