User talk:Lkr3515

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lkr3515, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voice stress analysis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Russell, M., & Coetzee, C. (2000). Truth extraction: how to read between the lies. Claremont [South Africa: Spearhead Press. ISBN 0-86486-464-7</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice stress analysis[edit]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Voice stress analysis, as we really appreciate your participation. However, a number of your edits had to be reverted, for the following reasons:

You removed content from article with this edit, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page.

You also removed COI, POV and refimprove banners with this edit, but without providing an explanation or edit summary for this. This is not considered appropriate on Wikipedia. Such banners should not be removed from articles unless the issues they mention have been resolved, or if you can explain, on the talk page or in your edit summary, why the tags/banners are not needed.

With this edit, you added a paragraph of material that was not supported by the citation at end of it, as the page seen at the url you included makes no mention of it. Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, material obtained through personal knowledge, or which constitutes the an analysis or interpretation by the editor that is not found in cited sources. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources that support the material in question.

In addition, the above-mentioned material was written in an informal manner, addressing the reader with the pronoun "you". As an encyclopedia, material in Wikipedia must be written in a formal tone, as explained by WP:TONE, which means, among other things, that material should not address the reader in this manner, as indicated by WP:YOU. If however, this passage was a direct quote by a reliable source, then it should have been presented as such, with quotation marks, explicit attribution, and a citation of a reliable source that supports it. Without such attribution, the passage appears to be a statement of your personal assessment or opinion, which is prohibited by Wikipedia's policies on original research and neutrality.

You changed an existent category to a non-existent one with this edit. Why did you do this? If you intended to create a new category, then the appropriate thing to do would have been to create one.

With this edit, you stated in your edit summary that you "Returned page to previous version, as the last edit made by someone else completely removed all the additional references that were added." If you felt that necessary references that you had added had been improperly removed, then the proper way to have addressed that would have been to restore the deleted references, and not do a blanket revert of all the edits that had been made, including the legitimate ones, such as the restoration of the banner tags, removal of the uncited POV paragraph, etc. As it stands, I see only one reference that was removed (the Russell, M., & Coetzee, C. one), which you could've reverted with a simple cut-and-paste job, rather than a blanket revert.

Lastly, a more minor point, but regarding this edit, punctuation goes before citations, not after. Spaces should not be placed before citations. Nightscream (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted your recent edits for the following reasons:

You removed content from Wikipedia with this edit, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page.

With this edit, you added material on vendors. The first paragraph is not supported by any citations, but ends with a citation tag. If you add material to Wikipedia, then it is you who must include citations for it, not others.
The second paragraph consists of mention of vendors and links to their websites. This violates both WP:PSTS and WP:NOTADVERT. As explained at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor is it a platform to advertise companies. The material in Wikipedia must be of a encyclopedic nature, and be supported mostly by secondary sources, not primary sources, which is why a link to a vendor's website is.
Also, citations must clearly inform the reader what the source is, who published it, and where. "Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, New York, October, 2000" is not a citation, because it does not indicate what the publication was, what its title was, who was the author, etc. Verifiability cannot be achieved if the reader does not know what type of medium the source is or how to find it.
Lastly, as I mentioned above, punctuation goes before citations, not after, and without spaces, as indicated by WP:PAIC.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lkr3515, in your most recent edits, you removed the passage indicating that studies that cast doubt on the reliability of VSA, despite the fact that that passage is properly accompanied by a citation of a source that supports that passage, and without any rationale for this in your edit summary.

In addition, you added an unattributed opinion to the article that is worded as if it were fact ("Independent studies as those identified above reflect the validity and benefit to using it.") This is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy, which prohibits editors from adding material that exhibits a non-neutral point of view that is not found in the cited source. If one of the papers cited, or their author(s) made this statement, then please point out to me where in the paper this is stated. If the quote can be found there, then the quote can be restored, with proper attribution.

Lastly, the edit summary you wrote for the edit in question was "Sentence structure changed to make the content relevant to cited references." This is not an accurate summary of your edits, as it makes no mention of the passage you removed or the material you added. When making such edits, please make sure that you leave an accurate edit summary. Employing inaccurate edit summaries can be interpreted by others in the editing community as deceit, particularly if it happens often. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote reversion[edit]

Hi there. I see you've reverted my addition of a hatnote to the Voice Stress Analysis page. May I ask why? Vipre is a fairly well-known piece of anti-virus software - see Comparison of antivirus software - and the term "Vipre" doesn't appear anywhere on the Voice Stress Analysis page. From what we have now, I believe that Vipre should redirect to GFI Software as the term doesn't appear to have anything to do with voice analysis, but I don't mind leaving the redirect alone if the appropriate references are added to the Voice Stress Analysis page and the hatnote is reinstated. Tevildo (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe/pseudoscience[edit]

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 pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

Voice stress analysis is a fringe science, and your edits are a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the voice stress analysis entry you 'Removed reference to Ukranian journal which was actually a Russian Language copy of the Chapman study' . But there is no Scientific Journal Criminalistics and Court Expertise. It does not exist. Please provide link to this journal to prove otherwise. And if you claim the english version is the original, why does the document you link to say 'Reprinted from...' Stringfellows (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Rice (Revolutionary War soldier)[edit]

The article David Rice (Revolutionary War soldier) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established in article. All we are told is he was an 18th-century militia sergeant who was married, had some kids and died when a tree fell on him

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dumelow (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]