User talk:ThedukeSL

Image source problem with Image:StressEN.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:StressEN.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Reinis^talk 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

Please note that if you are the same individual as this anon IP address, the additions to the stress page have been significantly reworked, in many cases removed. There were no sources cited, and the tone was inappropriate for wikipedia. In particular, it resembled an essay entry, and looked like a lot of original research. Please feel free to discuss these changes in the stress talk page or my own talk page if you require further clarification. Thanks! WLU 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Stress (medicine). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Also, there was no need to change the maintenance tag's date to 2009. Please consider discussing your changes on the article's Talk page before adding this material again. -- Kesh 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Stress (medicine), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At this point, your continued addition of original research and intentionally changing the cleanup date to 2009 indicates you are not interested in following Wikipedia's guidelines. Please discuss any further changes you want to make on the article's talk page. -- Kesh 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dir sir,
I did not add commentary or personal analysis of any type or kind.
All of the material is relevant scientific facts and important and interesting data and findings that elaborate and simplify core ideas that to dismiss them will turn the goal of understanding Stress mute.
More then that, as with every written thing I add, this addition was fully cited, or at least cited enough to show relevancy and that it is scientific based, still additional citing and BASED editing is always welcome.
Changing the cleanup date was an act of ignorance and done by a mistake. I wish no harm done to Wikipedia - I have nothing but respect for this media - as can be seen from my contribution, done as a project - part of my curriculum (psychologist).
Sensirly,
ThedukeSL 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material you added was not cited, and contained a number of weasel words. It was written as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You need to provide independent, verifiable sources. Try reading up on WP:CITE to get an idea of how you should be citing your sources. Also, your grammar is in serious need of work, and you should not be ending all your sentences with <br /> tags.

You say that doing this is part of your curriculum? I don't see how. Editing Wikipedia is a minor thing, and certainly not verifiable by your school. Perhaps you meant that the proposal you are trying to add to Wikipedia is part of your curriculum?

I strongly suggest you try bringing up your changes on the Talk pages, so that others can see what you're wanting to add and discuss the changes first. -- Kesh 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up man. I sincerely meant well. I think this material is very relevant and I did my best in citing it. Revision might be a better solution then simply ignoring (and deleting) some truths. The scientific truth and the world of knowledge must not suffer because of my shortcomings – better citation work (and Grammatik know-how) is needed here not a happy trigger (deleting) finger. From our correspondence you seem like the right guy for the job. Good luck. ThedukeSL 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the help page for lots of useful guidelines and information on how to work within Wikipedia. You were asked several times to discuss the changes in the article's Talk page, but you chose not to. Using the Talk pages is important for communication within Wikipedia. Also, please don't remove discussion from Talk pages, as you have done in your user:talk page. If parts of the discussion are removed, users who visit a Talk page subsequently will not be able to see the full context of the discussion(s). Again, check out the help pages for more info. --- Taroaldo 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]