User talk:688dim

Welcome!

Hello, 688dim, 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 Nun patapia, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nun patapia

A tag has been placed on Nun patapia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Nun patapia has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=243881069778&ref=mf.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Nun patapia

Hi there 688dim! I saw that you added a {{hangon}} tag to a page which you created, Nun patapia. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD A7. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at Talk:Nun patapia, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mother superior Patapia for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Mother superior Patapia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother superior Patapia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jack Vine (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Sister Patapia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sister Patapia.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Mother Patapia.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Mother Patapia.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Nun Patapia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nun Patapia.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Monastery of Saint Patapios.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Monastery of Saint Patapios.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Saint Patapios.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Saint Patapios.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Monastery of Saint Patapios.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Monastery of Saint Patapios.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about accidentally uploading more than one copy of a photo. Someone will eventually notice this and delete the extra copies. If you don't get everything quite right with an upload, you can always click on the edit tab on the picture page and change things. But again, so long as you get it right in the end, it's no big deal. We delete hundreds of images a day. A few more don't matter. Just so long as we don't delete every copy of your pictures. That would be a problem! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are longer explanations at Wikipedia:Images to say how to control the way images display on a page. But the only really important thing to know is that if you add a "thumb" parameter, the wiki software shows a smaller version of the picture. Like you saw, if you put [[File:Saint patapios image.jpg]] in an article, it will always show the full size picture. But if you change that to [[File:Saint patapios image.jpg|thumb]] (which I did already in the two articles) you see a much smaller "thumbnail" view of the picture rather than the full sized one. The "thumbnail" is nearly always what you'll want to show in an article. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the article should be called. If you searched for Elder Porphyrios, it would take you to the article, so at least that is not a problem. If he is called "Γέρων Πορφύριος" in Greek, then maybe it should be called that here. You could maybe ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece. They would have a better idea perhaps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Saint Hipomini icon.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Saint Hipomini icon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

~~If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Updated to use PD-art. Images uploaded to English Wikipedia need a license tag to enable confirmation that they ARE in effect not copyright images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Saint Patapios icon.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Saint Patapios icon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

~~If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Proposed deletion of Sabine Quindou

The article Sabine Quindou has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The-Pope (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is add a source to the article. But the source can not be just the French Wiki article, it must be from a reliable source and preferably significant coverage, not just a minor mention. Find a newspaper article, or a award that she's won, or similar. It can be in French, it doesn't have to be in English, you just need to verify her notability. If you think you have a suitable source, but don't know how to properly include it, either read WP:CITE or reply on my talk page. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patapios & Hypomone

Please stop re-adding the section "Celebration of the Saint" on St Patapios' article. It is already mentioned int he lead section. And please stop re-creating articles on St Hypomone. The article on her already exists, it is at Helena Dragaš, and saints' names are never translated from their native language. "Saint Patience" is absurd. Regards, Constantine ✍ 10:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Dragaš

Huh? What exactly do you mean? The article states her name,that she was empress of Byzantium and mother of Constantine Palaiologos. What exactly is your problem? That we don't use Greek forms for the names? Dragaš is a Serbian surname, and Constantine Dragaš was a Serbian ruler. We don't change the native surnames unless the person that bore them used a different form, and the convention is that princesses usually retain their native name in their articles regardless of their marriage. That is why we have articles at Maria Palaiologina Kantakouzene and not Maria Paleologina Kantakuzina, or Olga Constantinovna of Russia instead of Queen Olga of Greece. Constantine ✍ 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that it is your personal opinion that is out of line here: the established norm, both in Wikipedia and scholarship, is to retain the original surname. Check Google Books for an indication of established usage: "Helena Dragases" is used in 19 publications, "Helena Dragas" in 117, and further 29 use "Helen Dragas". This is the English Wikipedia, not the Greek one, and English language norms are to be used per Wikipedia's guidelines. Hence no "Saint Patience" (for the reasons I explained above), and no "Eleni Dragasi" either. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Frédéric Courant

The article Frédéric Courant has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Killiondude (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bishop Dionysios.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bishop Dionysios.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Babis Papadimitriou, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Analyst and Eurobank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan bishop of Corinth Dionysius

With respect to your work on Metropolitan bishop of Corinth Dionysius, I have removed two of the three pictures you added. Reason for this is the correct balance between text and pictures. I kept the best picture of Bishop Dionysius and put that in the new infobox. Hope you can live with that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Father Nectarios new.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Father Nectarios new.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.globalusers.com/monastir_eng.htm. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vera Peiffer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vera Peiffer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Travelbird (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. When you recently edited Babis Papadimitriou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commentator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peristera Baziana

Thank you for writing the page on Peristera Baziana. I rewrote it fixing some awkward phrasing, but I hope that I left your work as you would like.

Best, Ph8l (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Please do not delete discussions from talk pages, even your own, if they have become part of the history of discussion on the topic. If you wish to WP:REDACT, there are methods to indicate that you have changed positions. This helps prevent the same issue from coming up multiple times. Thanks.Novangelis (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it goes to archive, I'll link to the discussion. There's plenty of time; let's face it, the organism is not a hotbed of frenzied editing, where twenty new threads will start in the next week. Don't worry about making isolated mistakes; all editors, not just the new ones, make mistakes. The important thing is not to keep making the same errors. The collaborative process allows us to catch each other's mistakes. That is why Wikipedia works.Novangelis (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aris Portosalte

The article Aris Portosalte has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no claim of notability based on third-party sources

While all 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. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peristera Baziana

The article Peristera Baziana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject's only claim of notability is being the fiance of Alexis Tsipras. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG.

While all 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. – Kosm1 fent 17:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peristera Baziana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peristera Baziana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peristera Baziana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Kosm1 fent 05:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dyskoimesis

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

Dictionary definition. Move to Wiktionary, and redirect to Dysomia

While all 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. PamD 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Father Nectarios new.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Father Nectarios new.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Babis Papadimitriou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commentator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nikos Markatos

added links pointing to Dean, MP, DIC and Selwyn College

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nikos Markatos

added links pointing to Dean, MP, DIC and Selwyn College

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on a scintific study I tried not change the words of the published articles. But I will agree with you and already I changed the related paragraphs, without changing the meaning.688dim (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must put the conclusions in your own words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an order? You speak so assertive. You are misleading as I wrote only the conclusion of the 2 studies with the same words, not the whole article. In any case you should not remove the whole addition as this is very rude. I will make the changes, although I still believe that we should not change the conclusion of a scientific study. Please do not remove it again. 688dim (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an order. However if you continue to copy and paste from sources you will lose your ability to edit Wikipedia. Also with respect to sourcing people read WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be polite, but I do not like your assertive and threatening tone, since I explained you already and you make me say for third time that I just referred to the conclusion of the 2 articles with the exact words of the authors, as I was reluctant to change them and adulter their meaning. So I did not copy paste the article, but just used the authors' exact words on the conclusion of the 2 studies.

In any case, I wrote again the paragraphs and uploaded them. I also added a 3rd source. Wiki is assessible for all on editing. If you still disagree with my addition instead of removing the paragraphs and threatening me you can just improve it. It is easier to edit it and make it the way that in your eyes seems better here in wiki. 688dim (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

688dim, let me explain. Wikipedia is indeed an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but - and this is a very big "but" - editing is a privilege freely offered to all - it is not a right. You can lose your editing privileges. Every time you edit Wikipedia, you implicitly agree to follow WIkipedia's policies and guidelines -- see the Terms of Use that are linked to, at the bottom of every page in Wikipedia. If you don't follow the policies and guidelines, you will be blocked from editing to show you that it is important, and you can actually be banned from Wikipedia if you refuse to learn the policies and guidelines and to follow them. One of WP's policies, is WP:COPYVIO. Please read that. Doc James has very clearly told you that you are violating that policy by copy/pasting. If you continue to violate it, you will be blocked. Also, WP:MEDRS is our guideline for sourcing health-related content. You have been violating that guideline by using primary sources for health related content. Doc James has told you that too. That is all he is doing, is telling you very clearly what you are doing wrong - he is giving you a chance to acknowledge your mistakes and to change your behavior -- we give people the chance to learn and change! So please don't argue - please learn and change your behavior. I hope all that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about the issues you mentioned, I explained it above and I will say it for 4th time that I did not copy paste anything, but I just used the exact words on the conclusions of the 2 studies. But eventually, I complied and I revised the 2 paragraphs and also added a new one. In any case, everyone that thinks that me or someone else writes something not according to the wiki's directives he/she may edit it. I did not do any violation and I do not say that I do not comply with wiki's policy. In fact I immediatelly changed the paragraphs when I was notified. About the initial edit I just thought that I should not change the original words of the authors' conclusions of the 2 related paragraphs. In other words, I was reluctant to change the original phrases, but as soon as I notified I complied by revising the paragraphs. As you can see from my history, I do not have any notification for the same subject so I think that we should not speak about violation in my case. 688dim (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folks are writing here - taking time out of their day - to try to help you learn how this place works. You should listen more and ask more questions. You are of course free to continue being combative. But that approach is going to lead to a short and frustrated tenure for you here; I have seen it many times - people refuse to learn, and argue instead, and get frustrated and leave. A huge waste of time for everyone involved, and often a tragic loss of someone who could have been productive and had a good time. You will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My addition on testosterone was removed for 3rd time!=

An unknown person removed my addition on testosterone for 3rd time, but I do not find anything wrong on it, speaking scientifically. I guess that some people think that the article they wrote is something like their personal page. Could the person who deleted the addition give me please a reason of removing it? Doesn't this removal discourages a scientist like me to edit on wiki? In any case I am done. I will edit it on another encyclopedia. I think that removing this so important information will not make the article better. About the person who removed the addition, I find it more useful if he/she edited the paragraphs and used the relevant information the way he/she thought better, rather than simply deleting them. I think that the problem comes from some users that delete edited information, often without scientific criteria, as in my case.

About what you refer on not using primary sources, as a scientist and medical expert I disagree and in case this is wiki's policy (please give me reference for this), then I find it useless to edit a review instead of an RCT, so in that case I find no reason to edit at all. A review is not useful for me. I am surprized why it is useful for wiki. However, in most articles on wiki I read primary sources, rather than reviews. 688dim (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote below, you need to remember that you are editing Wikipedia, not some blog. You are writing in Wikipedia, which has policies and guidelines, that define what is acceptable content and what is not. You can think of it somewhat akin to the requirements of various journals - Nature has its requirements for how articles are set up, how much experimental detail you include, etc. that are different from say, "Cell". Sure you can submit whatever kind of manuscript you want to any journal you want. If you blow off the specific journal's requirements you should not be surprised or outraged if your submission is rejected out of hand. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next issue is references

For medical content we should use secondary sources such as review articles rather than primary sources per WP:MEDRS. All the sources you used were primary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the online lessons, but I prefer primary sources as more updated and conclusive, rather than reviews. I am a scientist as well. Metanalysis would actually be more accurate as they assess all the available RCTs, however they are not held for all issues, especially on ongoing studies. The facial phenotype and the testosterone levels are something new and radical, so I guess that we will have metanalysis many years later. Personaly, I do not find reviews useful and I seldom use them as a scientist. 688dim (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hmm OK so some things are becoming clear, as I read the set of comments you wrote this morning. A few key points for you:

You are not dealing with the fact that you are editing Wikipedia, which is a very particular context. This place is not a wild west, where you can do whatever you want without consequences. We have policies and guidelines, and if you do not fall in line with them, your content will get rejected, and you will get kicked out. Your personal preferences are not relevant to work you do in Wikipedia. Every policy and guideline we have emphasizes that content should be based on secondary sources. MEDRS is especially clear on that.
Everything in this bullet point is going to be bizarre to you, if you are a scientist unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we describe the knowledge our institutions produce and we do our best to describe the state of knowledge on the subject of our articles, as that state is described in reliable secondary sources. We look to secondary sources to tell us which views are central and close to consensus, to which we give the most WP:WEIGHT, and which views are more peripheral and thus are given less WEIGHT. Secondary sources tell us where the field stands. Citing secondary sources gives our readers confidence that they are getting information that is reliable, and editors refer to secondary sources to resolve disputes between them. This is the heart of the policy, WP:NPOV. We do not, and cannot, ourselves make the judgement about what work is central and important vs what is peripheral, directly from the primary literature. Doing so is original research, which is forbidden by policy. We are editors, not authors. We all know that this is not how science is done. Scientists produce results that they publish in the scientific literature; other scientists read that work and consider it and react to it in their own work and publications. We know that this is how science is done. Wikipedia is not where science is done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You need to wrap your head around that, or you are going to have, and cause, endless problems.
You say that you are a scientist. OK - you should definitely read WP:EXPERT for some advice written for scientists. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am done!

Well, thanks for the online lessons and lectures, but I feel like you are speaking to a junior student. Also, the tone is not polite and you may read all the above messages e.g. they imply that do what the wiki's guidelines say, otherwise we will kick you out. I found very offending the fact that you speak about violation of the wiki's rules that is not my case. In case indeed wiki accepts reviews as reliable sources, then I will let someone else edit the articles. I am a scientist my self and very well informed and I never use reviews. I find metanalysis (from Cochrane for example) better as sources, but there are not held for any subject. I disagree that RCTs are not reliable. Not including them on wiki deprives the viewers for updated ongoing studies. So I will let lay people do the work of editing reviews on articles. After all, it makes me angry to see my editions removed by simple users that know every paragraph of wiki's rules and threat me of banning me from editing if I break them, but they do not simply edit the paragraphs and change them the way that wiki would accept them. I will not edit ever again on wiki. I am done. 688dim (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, you are a "junior student"; there is a learning curve to working here. I am sorry that you cannot grasp that. But this happens pretty often to Experts in a given field. I'm sorry you are leaving. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meta analysis are a type of review. We would be very supportive of you using Cochrane reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]