User talk:LAlawMedMBA

Welcome!

Hello, LAlawMedMBA!Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

License tagging for File:Danielle Lawrie (ncaa e lawrie 400).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Danielle Lawrie (ncaa e lawrie 400).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Danielle Lawrie (ncaa e lawrie 400).jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Danielle Lawrie (ncaa e lawrie 400).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Danielle Lawrie.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Danielle Lawrie.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fattburger - Good News.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Fattburger - Good News.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of of Fattburger

A tag has been placed on Fattburger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

copy vio - entire article copied verbatim from references, nb even the words "used with permission" in reference 3 are copied from that reference

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Myth1000 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fattburger

A tag has been placed on Fattburger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Survivor contestant occupations

Re your message: It is not a policy per se, but a consensus among editors discussed during previous seasons that the occupations were unnecessary and irrelevant to the game so they are excluded. You're welcome to bring up the issue again on the talk page for this season. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the current format of all of the tables: Contestants, The game, Voting history, U.S. Nielsen ratings have gotten to their current form after long discussions. Major changes to the format of the article tends to be rather contentious, so I do recommend bringing it up on the talk page before you change it. I'm not saying that things shouldn't and couldn't change, just that I strongly recommend that it be discussed first. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: Please remain civil in your discussions with editors. You might want to look out the Wikipedia policy is on the definition of vandalism, building consensus on Wikipedia, and the definition of desecration. I believe that you find that I neither vandalized or desecrated anything. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Fiefdom, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Fiefdom. Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Kianna Dior. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article and resubmit when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Triple double (volleyball)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation style

I've reverted one of your recent edits to the Sierra Club article, in which you moved the comma in a reference to SUSPS. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside, Wikipedia uses the "logical" quotation style, under which the previous placement of the comma outside the quotation marks was correct (even though that's not the most common style). JamesMLane t c 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I've reverted your edits to AIDS Denialism, Christine Maggiore, and Viera Scheibner. Please review words to avoid, particularly this section, and discuss your proposed changes on the respective talk pages before implementing them. Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring requests on your talk page, failure to communicate, persistently marking edits as minor

Wikipedia is a collaborative activity and we expect all editors to engage with their peers. This means replying to their concerns, discussing edits when necessary on article- and user-talk pages, using edit-summaries, and generally making it easy for other editors to understand why you've done what you've done. This is absolutely fundamental to the collaborative process of building Wikipedia, and editors who continually fail to communicate in a meaningful way are eventually blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As I've said, this is a collaborative exercise and at least some discussion needs to take place. Sadly, no one ever seems to have given you a welcome messages so I'll add one with links to polices and guidelines. Edit summaries are explained at WP:Edit summary. I haven't changed anything you edited. For examples of edit summaries, click on the history tab of an article. Yes, not all editors leave them, but they should. To get a better understanding of Wikipedia, read WP:Verify, WP:RS and WP:OR for general stuff, and for our manual of style, WP:MOS. Each of these has an associated discussion page. Also, please don't forget to sign on talk pages (only) with four tildes. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome message added at the top of this page. By the way, you can remove almost anything from your talk page, or you can archive it if it ever gets too long. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation style (again)

Could you please stop doing that ([1])? I see that you disagree with Wikipedia's WP:LP style. That's fine – most editors are going to have aspects of Wikipedia's guidelines they disagree with – but if we're all to get along in a project open to the entire world we need to follow long-established consensus. If you want to discuss the guideline the place to do so is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, though you should familiarise yourself with archived discussions first.

Thank you, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi--I stumbled across this page and hope you don't mind my intrusion. Looks like you don't realize it's an American but not universal practice to put periods and commas inside quotation marks. Brits, for example, put them outside. Best, Yopienso (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I came here to respond to your comment on my talk page, but I see that Adrian J. Hunter has already addressed the point. Also note my comment a few threads up. I don't customarily discuss every change with an editor before making it -- see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle -- but I did let you know what I was doing and why.

On my talk page, you referred to logical quotation marks as "a punctuation method that cannot be found in any style manual." As Adrian's link to WP:LP shows, the method can be found in our style manual. You might be correct that the method can't be found in any other style manual, and I believe that argument has been made in the several discussions of this issue that have already occurred. For purposes of Wikipedia articles, however, if it's in WP:MoS (as it is), then the result is "one vote aye, seven votes nay, the ayes have it" (paraphrasing Lincoln when he disagreed with his entire Cabinet about something).

Thus, this isn't "the manner which Wikipedia apparently tolerates" -- it's the manner that Wikipedia prescribes.

As for use in legal papers, I haven't cracked the Blue Book in years, but my vague recollection is that it prescribes typographic style in most instances, but calls for logical style in quotations from statutes. Statutory quotations must be exact as to punctuation because the presence or absence of a comma can alter the meaning. That's just a side note, though; this project still follows the Wikipedia MoS regardless of what any other style guide says. JamesMLane t c 07:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)