User talk:Emilmm

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Girolamo Savonarola 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Microsoft, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. —bbatsell ¿? 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Above is your last warning. —bbatsell ¿? 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen International School

I have reverted your addition. Please can you read up on the editing policies before you go any further. the five pillars are a good place to start. Then try Reliable Sources and NPOV. Your statement was unsourced and was from a Point of View rather then Neutral. Thanks. --Spartaz 07:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIS Redux

Reliable sources mean that you have to quote someone making the statement not find two sites and do the comparison yourself. That is called Original Research and is not permitted. Why are you so desparate to insert this information? If you have an agenda, you need to leave that to one side when you edit. --Spartaz 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I quote myself? If not, why not? What makes me so inferior? Who can I quote? I am not the only person that wrote something like this. Can I quote the person before me that wrote something as I did? I am not so "desperate" to insert this information. Why are YOU so desperate to remove this information? If parents want to send their children to a school, why not give them all the information they need to decide what school they should send their children to? I do not, in anyway have an agenda. I'm just stating facts. After all, the main role of Wikipedia is to INFORM, isn't it?

Please sign your name at the end of your posts on talk pages by clicking the sign your name link under the edit summary box. That helps us know who said what when.

Concerning my message, did you read the link I attached on original research? I'm guessing not, given the speed with which you responded and the fact that you do not understand why you can't quote yourself. Please do so if you wish to understand what we are about here. In a nutshell everything added needs to be written from a neutral point of view, have reliable sources and must not, under any circumstances, be original research.

I'm not actually bothered either way with your statements but you need to show an independant source for the information from a recognised authority on the subject before you can insert it. Comparing two schools at random does not provide a rounded picture. Quoting a report from the education correspondant of the Copenhagen Post or the department of education does. This is because the authors will have checked their facts and (hopefully) done a rounded comparison before reaching the conclusion including whether the cohorts of children concerned are equivilently measurable. Do you see how it works?

Would you decide which school to send your child to by reading an encyclopedia? I wouldn't, and I didn't so your reasons for inserting the information are not really valid or helpful to writing the article. --Spartaz 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler comparisons are way out of line and can be incredibly offensive round here. Here are some more links for you to read. WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I'm not particularly offended but there are editors who would be devestated by the comparison and that's far from cool. Please do not use language like that again.

The whole quote from OR is:

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

May I ask what your specialist knowledge in this field is? If you were published in Extrabladet then the context would be very important in deciding whether the reference was acceptable. For example, was it an "op ed" piece, a letter or an article? Perhaps you can provide a link or a citation for the source you are referring to? Spartaz 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]