Hi, Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message here, watch the page; I will respond here. Thanks!
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: ( successful, unsuccessful) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gardasil&diff=next&oldid=297365405
(I hope this is what you meant by "leave me a message here"!)
Anyway, it's no big deal, but if you could look at the above link and let me know a bit more about what you meant I'd be grateful.
You said: (rv:youtube is not a reliable source, and the cdc is not Merck).
Quick notes:
(1) My source wasn't Youtube, it was CBS. Youtube is simply the repository for the CBS footage.
(2) I wasn't suggesting that the CDC was Merck in any way and it couldn't be construed as such, but the text as it was, said "with NO evidence the vaccine has caused serious adverse effects" was a corporate point of view written as fact and needed clarification or at least 'levelling'.
Anyway, it's all mute as the article has been revised hundreds of times since then, I'm just trying to understand more about Wiki editing.
Cheers, matthk
BFB "Will it to be and you have of it" (
talk)
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI -- Kaptinavenger ( talk) 07:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Back in 2009 you copied text from one article to another:
- Macroevolution -- Aunt Entropy at 17:31, 17 October 2009 (attempt to add ref) diff
However you did not provide adequate attribution, and the text you copied only included short citations with no corresponding long citations in a References section.
There are three articles with the short citations to "Pinholster 2006." but no long ones in a References section which were created with the following edits:
- Macroevolution -- user:Aunt Entropy at 17:31, 17 October 2009 (attempt to add ref) diff
- Kent Hovind -- user:Kevinkor2 at 22:50, 25 September 2010 (Copied general argument from Creation–evolution controversy) diff
- Denialism -- user:ComfyKem at 15:13, 28 February 2013 -- no comment diff
Thanks to Kevinkor2 including the name of the article it is possible to trace the original to Creation–evolution controversy. Including the name of the article is part of the copyright policy, but it also helps editors find and fix problems like this one.
Please read:
- Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Copying within Wikipedia
- Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia § Other reasons for attributing text
-- PBS ( talk) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| x RealSERShawn ( talk) 17:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) |
Nomination of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for deletion (discussion here)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Examination of Apollo Moon photographs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message here, watch the page; I will respond here. Thanks!
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: ( successful, unsuccessful) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gardasil&diff=next&oldid=297365405
(I hope this is what you meant by "leave me a message here"!)
Anyway, it's no big deal, but if you could look at the above link and let me know a bit more about what you meant I'd be grateful.
You said: (rv:youtube is not a reliable source, and the cdc is not Merck).
Quick notes:
(1) My source wasn't Youtube, it was CBS. Youtube is simply the repository for the CBS footage.
(2) I wasn't suggesting that the CDC was Merck in any way and it couldn't be construed as such, but the text as it was, said "with NO evidence the vaccine has caused serious adverse effects" was a corporate point of view written as fact and needed clarification or at least 'levelling'.
Anyway, it's all mute as the article has been revised hundreds of times since then, I'm just trying to understand more about Wiki editing.
Cheers, matthk
BFB "Will it to be and you have of it" (
talk)
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI -- Kaptinavenger ( talk) 07:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Back in 2009 you copied text from one article to another:
- Macroevolution -- Aunt Entropy at 17:31, 17 October 2009 (attempt to add ref) diff
However you did not provide adequate attribution, and the text you copied only included short citations with no corresponding long citations in a References section.
There are three articles with the short citations to "Pinholster 2006." but no long ones in a References section which were created with the following edits:
- Macroevolution -- user:Aunt Entropy at 17:31, 17 October 2009 (attempt to add ref) diff
- Kent Hovind -- user:Kevinkor2 at 22:50, 25 September 2010 (Copied general argument from Creation–evolution controversy) diff
- Denialism -- user:ComfyKem at 15:13, 28 February 2013 -- no comment diff
Thanks to Kevinkor2 including the name of the article it is possible to trace the original to Creation–evolution controversy. Including the name of the article is part of the copyright policy, but it also helps editors find and fix problems like this one.
Please read:
- Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Copying within Wikipedia
- Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia § Other reasons for attributing text
-- PBS ( talk) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| x RealSERShawn ( talk) 17:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) |
Nomination of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for deletion (discussion here)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Examination of Apollo Moon photographs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)