User talk:Academic2007

Welcome!

Hello, Academic2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sbowers3 (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Your recent edit to Oxford Round Table (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses/phone numbers or YouTube/Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr or related links to a non-talk page. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Oxford Round Table (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses/phone numbers or YouTube/Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr or related links to a non-talk page. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

Thank you for your contributions to Oxford Round Table. You added several links to other Wikipedia articles by using single brackets and the http url. I just want to let you know of an easier - and preferred - method. Just enclose the item in double square brackets. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that your edit to Oxford University was reverted - primarily because you accidentally messed up the following text. You had a ref/ that should have been a /ref. If you re-add that paragraph it might fit better in the affiliates section under the Other sub-section. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Oxford Round Table, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table

An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Coldmachine^Talk 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this as a disruptive single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have now been unblocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones. Unblock performed by User:Jossi. Oh behalf of the community, I apologies for this unfortunate situation. Outside comments are always welcome here on Wikipedia, and we hope you will continue to contribute. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Peace Prize

Hi!

Your tag at Nobel Peace Prize doesn't meet Wikipedia's Neutral point of view criteria. Edits must adhere to this, Here's an extract from the policy guideline:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]