- 1 Original Welcome
- 2 Smile
- 3 Arnon Should have used the 'cur' 'prev' buttons before making this edit
- 4 Image:RafaelPumped.jpg listed for deletion
- 5 1.0 Review Team
- 6 December 2008 Amazon Edit
- 7 Invite to WikiConference India 2011
- 8 WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
- 9 Citizenship in the United States
- 10 Featured In the Press
Hello Daydreamer302000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Arnon Chaffin 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I will inform on any revets you have made, but the only reason I undo the CNN reference because you toke out a whole section of it. I was just on the recent changes page and saw a whole section deleted, sorry IF I misunderstanded.Arnon Chaffin 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to know what changes have actually been made, please use the 'cur' and 'prev' links in the history to see the changes. This would quickly have revealed that I did not take out a section, but merely the biased reference. I'm glad this is cleared up and if you ever get a chance, let me know your secret to getting to be a moderator here! :) --Daydreamer302000 12:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:RafaelPumped.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RafaelPumped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1.0 Review Team
Hi Daydreamer, thanks for signing up for the review team, and for reviewing a few articles. We released our first CD in April, which received a surprising amount of press coverage - this indicates that there is a lot of interest in what we're doing. Please help to make the next release even better! Let me know if you need some guidance, and be sure to take a look at the FAQ page and get started. Thanks, Walkerma 19:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
December 2008 Amazon Edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Amazon.com, 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. tedder (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Invite to WikiConference India 2011
WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.
As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.
If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.
You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.
Your removal of referenced content, claiming it was too opinionated -- wondering if you might clarify what you mean. The subject of the article is, of course, citizenship in the United States. And the practice of maternity citizenship is an important aspect of this subject. The fact that serious numbers of foreign women (one estimate: 400,000) give birth to anchor babies is a substantive part of what citizenship is about -- of course it is controversial, but the content noted both sides of the controversy in a neutral tone. I am wondering if you might further explain your deletion of an entire paragraph of referenced content -- which has been there for several years without raising any concerns.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just because content has been there for years does not make it valid in its location or appropriateness. One obvious thing is that there is already a 'controversies' section. I considered moving it there. I really did. But such things as controversial topics are nearly always opinionated (by definition, this really must be the case or else they wouldn't be controversial), and I like to stay out of putting opinions in what is supposed to be encyclopedic content. That section should only speak on its very specific content alone and nothing else. Any other related notable content, such as controversies, newsworthy examples, recent events of limited interest, etc... should have its own page. However since controversy sections have become a sort of become accepted practice on wikipedia (though they are frowned up), all such content may go there. If you really think this content belongs in the article, put it back into the controversies section and link to it from the relevant section where I made the removal. Otherwise that section should remain neutrally and objectively on-topic. The fact that words 'controversy' and 'headaches' even appear should have long ago set off the non-neutrality flags in some editor's mind.
- There is always also a concern about the datedness of such content. It tends to get out-of-date quick. Opinions/attitudes change, statistics are updated when more accurate data is available, sometimes the entire subjective content itself becomes entirely irrelevant for some reason or another. A well written encyclopedic article should be relatively immune to such things. If you are curious to see how an neutral article can have relevant content, while still being controversial, see my changes to the CNN article. That has been a real battle at times, but the same applies here. Such content, if it really is notable, should be worthy enough to have its own article and be discussed in its entirety there.
- Also, keep in mind, that just because something is a fact, doesn't mean it isn't controversial, even if the controversy occurs by association alone. For example: The child of a famous politician poses nude or a demographic statistic reveals a change in the population of notable minorities, etc....