User talk:JoelWhy
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Scantegrity II, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://punchscan.org/blog/2008/07/11/scantegrity-ii-in-evt-2008. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Scantegrity II
A tag has been placed on Scantegrity II requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. 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.
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 include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TN‑X-Man 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Nikki and Paulo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scorpion0422 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
MMR vaccine controversy
I wrote a short comment in the talk page of MMR vaccine controversy Trente7cinq (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring
Please stop edit warring at Hugo Chavez, or you will be reported for a WP:3RR violation. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Your editing will be much more effective if you will take some time to learn wiki policy, and review Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation-- correcting all of your posts is time-consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Responded on my talk. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Citation Debate
Hey, I know a bunch of people on the Hugo Chavez page have been wondering about reference format and what style of citation should be used. You are invited to join in the discussion and give your input at WT:VEN. Let the debate begin ... --Schwindtd (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join a discussion on the citation style to be used for the Hugo Chavez page. I know its kind of trivial, but a unified style can make the page look classy. As you are an active editor your input is greatly appreciated. To have your voice heard please go to WT:VEN under the heading titled Citation StyleThanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Please properly format citations
Hi JoelWhy -- Thanks for your recent contributions to Hugo Chavez. But will you please take a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates and WP:CITE, so that you can learn how to properly format citations for your additions? Basically, right now, you are adding just a bare link in "ref" tags. If you can format the citations as demonstrated in the guidelines there (they basically just want you to add info about the author, publisher, title of the article/book, etc), it makes them more maintainable and readable. Otherwise, thanks again for contributing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- That source was previously represented in the article, and was summarily stripped from the article in spite of its high quality, creating imbalance and POV, while leaving opinion pieces from Weisbrot not subject to peer review or high quality editorialship. It's not necessary to format the source, since it's already present in the article. See WP:FN for how to use named refs to refer to sources already in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I know you're relatively new, so please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct very carefully; the wheels of dispute resolution on Wiki grind very slowly, and typically nothing happens until unresolved issues reach WP:ARBCOM, but the steps must be followed. If talk page issues do not resolve, the next step is WP:RFC/U, but the steps must be followed, and several editors must contact the disruptive editors on their talk pages, attempting to resolve issues, before a User conduct Request for Comment can be brought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit that you made...
When you made this edit, you commented, "You need to put this in an encyclopedic, balanced format if you want it added."
And you also commented, "I'd love to have more editors on the Hugo Chavez page who aren't overtly pro-Chavez. But, the edit warring isn't helping matters. The other editors just dismiss you as being a vandal. If you're serious about improving the page (which is heavily pro-Chavez at the moment), please join in the discussion, help provide sources, etc."
I read the articles at the sources that were cited, and the edit in question is a very, highly accurate summation of the contents of the articles in question. There is no good side to food shortages, hoarding, using the military to seize food, taking away incentives, etc. The content was as balanced as it could be.
However, if you think the material could be put back into the article in a more appropriate manner, perhaps you could be the one to do it. The sources are all first rate. All you have to do is figure out a more appropriate way to incorporate their contents into the article, in a way that you believe is more conductive to improving the encyclopedia.
72.95.234.23 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)