User talk:Factchecker atyourservice: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:47, 15 October 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Factchecker atyourservice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Murderbike 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sherman Austin

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk:Sherman Austin. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Murderbike 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you deleted, that I restored was the bot inserted notes saying who added what text, particularly, the text that you had added. It's VERY helpful for material in talk pages to be signed, so editors know who they are responding too. Murderbike 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[3][4]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi. As discussed at the helpdesk, you need to request a username change at Wikipedia:Changing username ASAP. See Wikipedia:Username policy before choosing a new username to change to. Thanks.--Chaser - T 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

repeated citings

Yeah, I just learned how to do this. If you're gonna cite something more than once, you put something like <ref name="Smith">Smith, John. ''Some dumb book''. Publisher, 1999.</ref> for the first cite, and then <ref name="Smith"/> for each successive cite. Good luck! Murderbike 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DivaNTrainin

Please stop editing this article "Copwathch"until you are willing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, with specific attention to the rules found under WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources. Thank you. Divantrainin 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Diva. That's what I posted on your user talk page before you deleted it. I posted it again after you deleted it because it seemed you had simply ignored the message. I don't need a record of it because I can just cut & paste it out of the edit history of your talk page if I ever want to post that comment again. Please drop this childish tit-for-tat and start editing constructively. If you do not, I will support all future efforts to have you banned from editing again, or at least banned from editing the Copwatch article.Factchecker atyourservice 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ban inc IMO.Factchecker atyourservice 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will also support the ban. This user has repeatedly violated WP guidelines and refuses to engage other users constructively. His/her childish behavior is totally unacceptable. Mycota 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I posted on the Admin Noticeboard yesterday. Someone there said the vandalism "appeared to have stopped" ... I don't know how he figured that exactly but didn't want to argue. Diva pulled the same edit today so I posted it on the Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism page. Diva, if you're reading this, cut the crap and come to the table.Factchecker atyourservice 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arv

as a tip please try to keep your summaries short when reporting as you did when reporting mrtobacco Shawnpoo 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was another user who posted that report with 3-page "summary".Factchecker atyourservice 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my bad the report was so big i found the wrong name ;p Shawnpoo 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk page comments

Hello. It may not have been your intention, but it appears you have deleted comments posted by other users in the Talk section of an article you have edited, Society for Human Resource Management. This is inappropriate per the guidelines found under WP:Talk page guidelines. Please avoid this in the future!Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I think that was a long time ago when I first started to edit. Best regards! --Eustress (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the guidelines under WP:Talk page guidelines also stipulate that you not alter comments left by other users. Additionally, the profile for the user that you identified as having deleted the previous comments redirects to your own user page. If the other account does not belong to you, it's possibly being treated as a WP:sockpuppet or a WP:meatpuppet. --User:Factchecker atyourservice

The reason I changed that username (one that redirects to me) is because that is my old username, under which I made some edits that were not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. In other words, I am trying to vanish, in accordance with the Wikipedia Right to Vanish [5], and I wish you would respect that. --Eustress (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I was not aware of such a rule, it appears I have done nothing to violate it. It stipulates that you be disassociated from that username, and it appears you were, and that all references to it be replaced with the new one. That also appears to have been done. I wouldn't even know about the other username had you not introduced it to the comments. I'll just delete the reference altogether and let's forget this, ok?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding and accommodation, Factchecker. --Eustress (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHRM article

A tag has been placed on Society for Human Resource Management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Society for Human Resource Management 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 help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hello. I have replaced the Verifiability tag which you removed from the SHRM article. Please do not construe a temporary absence of commentary by other editors to indicate that "resolution" of a dispute has been achieved.

Additionally, I have added an NPOV tag due to the obviously promotional nature of the article, and also nominated the article for Speedy Deletion under the Spam rationale. I believe it will be necessary to start over from scratch with this article in order to achieve an acceptable encyclopedia entry.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I have added a request for you on the article's talk page. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For making fine decisions in general editing with a good attitude. Best Eustress (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPI and WorldAtWork

I have tagged the Recognition Professionals International and WorldatWork articles as advertising. Since you appear to have written the articles in their entirety, I wanted to advise you of this and provide an opportunity for you to edit these articles yourself. If you choose to do so, please be mindful of the prior discussion under the SHRM article. If you do not wish to, I will do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe I removed any advertisement issues, using your SHRM text as a template for the Intro. If there are further problems, skip the tag and go ahead and fix the issues—they're short, stub articles. --Eustress (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin Abortion Edit

Factchecker, you have just reverted my edit and put in the exact same reference (except that it is the Seattle Times article itself, instead of a Google News reference to the same article) I removed because the transcript of the interview the article is summarizing clearly shows that "would ban" is the reporter's opinion and not Palin's. Please revert your reversion of my edit and continue the discussion on the Talk page. Thanks!--Paul (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my edit summary, first, there is no such requirement on using sources, at least none that I am aware of. Second, there are direct quotations available confirming what the reporter stated. The statement is now fully referenced and I will not be reverting it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

Thanks. My goal is neither to praise nor to criticize Palin, it is only to comply with our NPOV policy which demands that all significant views that are verifiable and come from reliable sources are included in the article. I wish more people would see this as a matter simply of complying with NPOV. Unfortunately most of my edits have been criticized by editors active on the talk page - I wish there were more people active who shared (and valued) my approach... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your note - I hope you find the energy and time to participate more on the article talk page, we need to create a positive attitude towards collaboration! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source-spamming

You don't need to apologize - I hope nothing I wrote questioned your ood faith! You really did remember something real, you just didn't remembe enough of it. This happens all the time and is nothing to feel bad about (you might just want to write a note to Jossi that you were sorry that in your zeal to uphold policies you judged his good faith attempt to hlep in haste ... but i am sure he understands too!!) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangers in a Strange Land

What I like most about the Sarah Palin article is that it puts me in touch with knowledgable editors like you. Your comments regarding the goings on at the rape kit thread are educational and informative. I also Wholeheartedly agree with your comments about editor:Collect. There is something more than meets the eye there. I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding Collect. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless Collect pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective). Sometimes the things that are found in an editors "contributions" can be very interesting.--Buster7 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 You don't need to apologize - I hope nothing I wrote questioned your ood faith!  You really did remember something real, you just didn't remembe enough of it.  This happens all the time and is nothing to feel bad about (you might just want to write a note to Jossi that you were sorry that in your zeal to uphold policies you judged his good faith attempt to hlep in haste ... but i am sure he understands too!!) [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]   |  [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
+==Strangers in a Strange Land==
+What I like most about the Sarah Palin article is that it puts me in touch with knowledgable editors like you. Your comments regarding the goings on at the rape kit thread are educational and informative. I also '''Wholeheartedly''' agree with your comments about editor:Collect. There is something more than meets the eye there. I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding Collect. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless Collect pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).  Sometimes the things that are found in an editors "contributions" can be very interesting.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)