User talk:May Cause Dizziness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, May Cause Dizziness, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Terry Long (comics), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shashwat986 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Terry Long (comics)[edit]

Ambox notice.png

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Terry Long (comics). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Donna Troy. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Donna Troy - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Shashwat986 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CSS[edit]

Hello. I noticed you've recently edited the CSS entry. I thought you should be aware of this new video documentary/interview with the group. It might be valuable for an external link or reference.

http://thecreatorsproject.com/creators/css

Thanks for your work with Wikipedia. CorridorX (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing inaccurate "facts" not in source[edit]

How did you get the notion that Geoff Johns is "openly gay" from that article? Does it include a statement by Johns that he's gay? Does it include a statement by anyone that Johns is gay? He is going to be on a panel to talk about gay characters in comics. That does not mean that he's gay. Please try to read more carefully. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

James the Just[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your recent participation in the James the Just article. Unfortunately, my edit summary got cut off so I'll post here why I undid your changes (sorry!)

1. Actually, the weasel words are within the quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so there's not much we could do about it, unless we were to use a better source that identified specifically which historians and which interpreters they were talking about. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be a lot of sources out there. Using weasel words within the quotation, to my understanding, doesn't violate policy, because the position is attributed to at least somebody specific (in this case, the C.E.). However, my criticism of this section wouldn't be the weasel words, but would be that, right now, the Catholic view still seems to predominate in the lede and in the article.

2. The sentence about historians' various opinions is intended to summarize the views of ALL historians. The point is, some believe he's a relative of Jesus, and some believe the term "brother of Jesus" is only meant spiritually. That is, as far as I know, the only two camps into which historians divide (if you're aware of a third view, by all means, cite away!). Remember that this section is the lede, in which is given a summary of what is said in the article below. The sections within the article should provide more detail.

Unfortunately, they don't (at least not as much as I'd like). What we have in those sections is a bit WP:Original research-y in that a bunch of verses is listed, primary historical texts are used (e.g. Josephus, Thomas, etc) and an interpretation is made without attribution. In my last pass through the article I attempted to address/denote some of this but I did not even begin to finish the job. The concerns I still have are that we don't cite prominent scholars that give these interpretations (assuming they exist) and that the Catholic POV, while not exclusively presented as the only POV, still dominates the article and the sources. It is true that most of our historical sources are Catholic, but there have to be better modern-day sources than just the Catholic Encyclopedia (as helpful as it is). If you would be interested in helping to remedy the situation by finding better or non-Catholic sources to give a better description of other POVs, I'd be much obliged.

-- Joren (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Freedom from Want (painting)[edit]

I removed {{tone|date=August 2010}} from Freedom from Want (painting) because the tag says to come see the talk page explanation that does not exist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And please note that labeling this edit as "vandalism" is a misuse of the Twinkle tool. Good-faith edits, regardless of whether or not you disagree with them, are not vandalism. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI: Sandy is one of the English Wikipedia's leading experts on LEAD, so if she says the lead is wrong, she's very probably correct in her assessment. (Certainly whenever she's said that about an article I'm involved in, she's been right.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks WaId :) I've removed the inappropriate warning that MCD left for the IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Histvio.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Histvio.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Italic[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Italic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Art pop listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Art pop. Since you had some involvement with the Art pop redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – hysteria18 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Velma Hart[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Velma Hart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I was not aware this article existed. WP:BLP1E comes into play here. She asked pointed questions of Obama in a town hall, which got significant coverage, and then she was interviewed a few times after that relating to her 1E. That does not make a notable individual for a Wikipedia biography.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)