User talk:Ecopedia

Philanthropy

Ecopedia,

Thanks for adding the references to the Philanthropy article. With efforts like your we may actually get a decent article on this subject! Because the source is basically the one book, I was wondering if it might be more appropriate to attribute the whole paragraph directly to the authors. Our guidelines would suggest (I haven't read the book so I'm not certain this is accurate or if the view is actually John Rohe's) something along the lines of According to Mary Lou & John Tanton Philanthropy responds to either present or future.... and then provide the reference for the whole the paragraph. Also the flip.onphilanthropy.com/news_onphilanthropy/africa/index.html reference is a little unclear. Which of the news stories is the assertion in? It would be best to link to it directly as the index will likely change over time, and (as I am proving!) it is hard to find the support for the statement from the URL. Thanks for your efforts on this. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Cordelia Scaife May. Please be more careful when editing articles 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. Nevhood 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 20:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts, Wikipedia:Original research, etc.

Regarding your edits RAISE Act - please review Wikipedia:Original research and especially the WP:SYNTH part. References have to directly relate to the topic at hand; we cannot piece together information to draw some conclusion of our own.

You also should be aware of the three-revert rule, and of the important idea that when an edit of yours is challenged, you should discuss the issue and obtain consensus, not revert. You especially should not revert (1) without explanation and (2) where more than one other edit has explicitly challenged the edit, by reversion or otherwise. Neutrality^talk 20:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit is even more nakely POV and SYNTH than your prior edit - and you did it without responding or acknowledging the discussion on the talk page. Please immediately self-revert. Neutrality^talk 21:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RAISE Act. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --MelanieN (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOLLOWUP: I see that you have once again re-inserted controversial material into the article RAISE Act. It has been quite properly deleted. Let me try, one final time, to explain why this material is improper for that article: it is argumentation. You are inserting your own opinion as fact, citing it to other subjects that have nothing to do with the RAISE Act, and stating it in Wikipedia's voice as if you had found it in secondary sources rather than making the connection yourself. This kind of editing is known at Wikipedia as WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and it is not allowed. It violates our principles of WP:Neutrality and WP:Verifiability. This is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for people to insert their own interpretations or opinions. Such editing will always be removed by other editors, and if done repeatedly it is considered disruptive. BTW this standard applies to all sides of the political debate; removals are not partisan, they are enforcing Wikipedia standards. The exact same thing would be done whether someone inserted unrelated material attempting to prove that the RAISE Act is a good thing, or to prove that it is a bad thing. As for Borjas, his opinion is already cited in the article.

You are welcome to discuss the subject on the article's talk page, where you can explain why you feel it is appropriate. But inserting this analysis into the article itself, in Wikipedia's voice as if it was authoritative, is improper.

Consider this your final warning: if you put it into the article again without getting talk page consensus first, you are very likely to receive a WP:BLOCK for disruptive editing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]