|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
You removed my addition that Stalin and Hitler were examples of left wing leaders during WW2. Communism and Socialism are both left wing ideologies therefore Stalin and Hitler were both relevant historical examples of left wing leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilant Owl (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- 1 Untitled Section
- 2 QUESTION REGARDING MY EDITS FROM SILVER PARNELL
- 3 Did you notice this edit to your user page?
- 4 Margaret Sanger
- 5 Tom Coburn
- 6 Message regarding changes to info about Albanian Navy
- 7 Congratulations
- 8 Oilseed rape
- 9 Speedy deletion nomination of LKQ Corporation
- 10 Bubble Gum
- 11 Reverting at Square root of 2
- 12 Brian Day entry one-sided, my edits undone
Hello, I made a correction to your revision on the page Abu Bhar al-Ghifari, I am undoing vandalism on 20:29, 30 June 2014 Kashan33; I have a PhD in History with a focus on Abrahamic relgions; all early converts to Islam were from Arabic poly- or mono-theism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emexieme (talk • contribs)
Hello I have just made a change to the pronunciation of Swahili words to which you have reverted with a request that I provide a citation. I don't know the rules obviously but I made the change as a native speaker of the language to correct what would be an obvious error to anyone from these parts. So, I have no sources to cite other than the fact that this is the way the language is spoken by 150 million people.
- When using a vandalism reversion tool, I tend to revert things that have small changes from things that shouldn't have changed as a result of the passage of time as vandalism. I guess since you asked, I'll undo my undo. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I made a change clearing up some conditions on the History of Jesus page, and believe it is of critical importance to inform readers that "There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically" is entirely untrue, as many scholars entirely dismiss Jesus. All sources use theological historians, who have a monetary and spiritual bias, and this should be mentioned to ensure a clear and better understanding can exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
QUESTION REGARDING MY EDITS FROM SILVER PARNELL
Hi there...first time editor here. Please be patient. I find the format here VERY confusing. As soon as I added material to my father's bio, you removed it citing CONFLICT OF INTEREST and, I believe, LACK OF SOURCES.
I did read up on what Wikipedia has to say about those two topics.
The "conflict of interest" thing puzzles me. I am not selling anything and I do not stand to profit in any way by correcting Wikipedia's meager offering. I just want my dad to be presented as a whole person. I recognized that huge chunks of relevant information about him were missing and sought to rectify it.
With regard to lack of sources. First, I was still working on the document when you deleted it. I was sitting here typing it and suddenly, it was gone. There is hardly any information about my dad on your page...just some stuff that someone found in a blurb in some newsletter or Hollywood rag. I have information on him from personal, direct knowledge, much of which is confirmed by my genealogical research documents, which I didn't have a chance to include because, as I said, I was still editing when you erased everything.
The "sources" already listed on Wikipedia don't have original source status...i.e., what I can provide. In my writing and my research work, the quality of the source is pretty important, and I would respectfully submit that firsthand knowledge is superior, especially that which can be further verified with documents.
Now, as I said, I am new here, so you will please forgive me if I ask you some questions. First of all, is someone paying you to be a watchdog as edits are being made, or, to phrase it another way, have you been specifically deputized to erase other people's work as they are typing? Did I type something that set off some alarm that notified you? I guess what I need to know is - are you a recognized authority here, or are you one of us?
Do you think Wikipedia would require me to reduce my edits to a terse mention of events and the dates associated with them? Of course, I can do that, but I've never had the impression that Wikipedia was quite that sterile. Please let me know the particular areas of concern that you have with what I wrote so that I can change that portion...and I do hope that you have saved that material that you deleted while I was typing because I had no idea this was going to happen and I didn't save it elsewhere.
Thanks for your time.
- Thanks for getting back to me.I've changed the article back to reflect what you'd added to give you a chance to fix it to conform with Wikipedia content guidelines and policy.
Regarding my "authority": I do have rollback and review privileges (and I have long been an autoconfirmed user, which I suppose puts me in a class above general Wikipedia users/editors. However, I am not a administrator, who are technically the true "authorities."
As to your edits, there are some very serious problems with them. You have written it in a memoir style, which is very inconsistent with Wikipedia, which contains encyclopedic content only (see what Wikipedia is not), containing both non-notable events and things written from a non-neutral point view.
Much of what you have written is not information that would be available from any reliable sources, but only information that you know personally as his daughter. This makes it original research, and means it cannot be added to Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind when you continue editing it. Above all, make sure you have reliable sources (you yourself are not a reliable source, nor is any Wikipedia user, even an "authority") for your information. Thank you. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Silver Parnell To add to that, all experienced editors have what we call a WP:Watchlist which shows us when changes are made to articles and talk pages. Mine has had several thousand articles on it in the past, possibly still does (It's got about 14,000 pages, but less than half are articles). And we do general expect that articles are written in a formal tone, the sort of tone you'd find in a World Book or Britannica article. I sympathise with your desire to add information that you know from personal experience, but that's something we don't allow. You haven't lost anything, it's all in the article history- click on this. As for authority, I'm not sure what you mean. We are all "one of us", all editors. Some have a lot more experience than others, some have trusted roles such as WP:Administrator or member of the WP:Arbitration Committee. Those people are chosen by the community, which was kind enough several years to to grant me the role of Administrator and which even more kindly elected me to a two year term as an Arbitrator recently (a role which does not deal with content of articles but mainly with excessive disruption that can't be dealt with through normal means. Editing Wikipedia is a learning curve and can be difficult to grasp for new editors. You can always ask questions at the WP:Help desk if you don't know exactly how to do something or what's appropriate to do. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you notice this edit to your user page?
THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU! That was very informative. I see exactly what is wanted. Personally, I don't agree that an eye-witness wouldn't be a source, but I will do my best to conform to the standards required on Wikipedia. I will omit some items and rewrite others. I can see how the learning curve is very steep. I'll do my best to catch on quickly. Silver Parnell Silver Parnell (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
HELP HELP HELP!!! I have rewritten the whole thing but I am completely lost with regard to the method of citation of sources and have COMPLETELY messed up the page on my dad, Edward J. Lakso. I have read quite a bit about citations but it is all so technical that my brain has started to fry and steam is coming out of my ears. I can't seem to wrap my brain around it. Please help! I am old. Silver Parnell Silver Parnell (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, had you actually decided to read my edits you'd see that I DID include a reference. I suppose I could call him a 'chicken farmer fucker' or just a bad person in general. But what do I know? I just live in the state, according to your wiki page you live in Georgia. Watch the specific show for my reference if you REALLY care that much... Or you could just look at all of the bills this guy has supported, either way up to you
The Karnataka section of the page "Economy of South India" MISGUIDES that Hubli is the most prominent city in Karnataka after Bangalore. (But, Hubli is the second most populous city in Karnataka after Bangalore. But, population alone is definitely not an indication of a city's importance.)
But Mangalore is the biggest business and commercial hub of Karnataka after Bangalore. It is also the most important city of the state in terms of revenue and other aspects. Surveys clearly state that Mangalore is the 13th top business destination in India.
So Mangalore is the most important city in Karnataka after Bangalore. Next comes Mysore and then Hubli. Hence, I request the to look into the earlier versions of the page, and see which version suits the best to reality, and henceforth edit the page to make it more reliable.
It appears that you are from the United States. So, plz google about Mangalore and Hubli, and decide which is the most important city among the two. I hope you will do the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, but I've never even read any Wikipedia articles about the Albanian Navy, much less added or removed any information. I have no idea why you messaged me instead of the person whom you actually wished to contact. ~~ beldujour (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Platinum STiki Barnstar of Merit
|Congratulations, DemocraticLuntz! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 50,000 classification threshold using STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.
- Is "oilseed rape" not a spoonerism vandalism of rapeseed oil? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, it isn't, use a dictionary before reverting what you think are spelling mistakes. The plant is oilseed rape. The product made from the plant is rapeseed oil. Possibly some human idiot might plant cans of rapeseed oil hoping they will grow, but bees would have more sense than to visit them for nectar. In any case, that is all beside the point. Even if the file name did have a spelling mistake, linking to the "correct" name still ends up with a redlink where the image should be in the article. You would have needed to change the filename of the image first before changing the link in the article (but please don't do that, you would be wrong). Do I have the impression that you still haven't looked at the result of your edit? SpinningSpark 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of LKQ Corporation
A tag has been placed on LKQ Corporation, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
- It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065696/000106569615000007/lkq-20141231_10k.htm. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Um, perhaps you should have just reverted the change/spam edit by User:Meprice to the perfectly reasonable stub it was before instead of requesting speedy deletion? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright violations must be deleted. Also, stubs are not good articles. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The proper thing to do there is to revert the copyright violations, not delete the article. Stubs are indeed not good articles, but again, the proper thing to do is expand them, not delete them. 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright violations must be deleted. Also, stubs are not good articles. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi DemocraticLuntz, and thanks for all the advices... i'm still in the process of learning and every help is precious and appreciated.
- In modern chewing gum, if natural rubber such as chicle is used,...
- In modern chewing gum, if natural rubber made from majestic rubber elephants chicle
Don't you think the latter is a vandalism attempt as well?
Reverting at Square root of 2
Someone added the new section Derived constants to the page Square root of 2, containing just the multiplicative inverse, which is exactly half the value of this irrational. In the lede of this article a decimal approximation is given with 65 decimal digits. I found this derived constant in now way noteable and reverted the insertion. Someone else reverted my reversion, giving as reason the airplane designation, which you reverted based on STiki.
I am still convinced, that is in no way noteable, and should be removed again, but I am also certainly not sufficiently engaged to start an edit war on this. I also consider the given reason to revert me the first time as a mockery, and my reaction to this as possibly inappropriate.
Brian Day entry one-sided, my edits undone
Hi there. A few weeks back I decided to read up on Wikipedia's description of the Brian Day case -- a court case that's hugely controversial in Canada.
I was surprsied to find a glowing, one-sided piece instead, so I took it upon myself (as someone who has edited many previous articles, re: Canadian health) to add some balance to the article. I made sure to add citations and to keep both sides of the debate in the article.
Basically Day's on-going legal challenge is pressing the courts to permit more privatization of healthcare in British Columbia, but would have repercussions elsewhere in Canada. As you can imagine, there are fierce proponents at high political levels on both sides of this debate (those who want more privatization and those who don't but want to keep the system as it stands).
This article right now sounds like propaganda for the pro-privatization side. There's no rationale for why my factual and citation-based edits where removed from the piece.
I'd like an independent editor(s) to weigh in, please.
This is not up to Wikipedia quality. My own edits don't have to be the ones that stand (i.e. there's many ways to write a more balanced entry) but they followed Wikipedia guidelines and the current article does not.