User talk:Artpot

You might want to change the name to Puerto Rican Pottery. You can change the name using the Move button at the top of your screen. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Artpot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moorcroft

Hi Artpot. I'm puzzled by your recent edit. How can a link to eBay not be classed as commercial? ThanxTheriac 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Susan Sarandon appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Susan Sarandon. 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. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan Sarandon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Pottery

Please read what I wrote on the talk page. If you continue to re-add the text I will ask for a neutral third party to look over the article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be re-writing the text or shall I ask a neutral third party to look over the article? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your latest edit, please read WP:OWN and the article's talk page where a third editor gave their opinion. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Puerto Rican Pottery, you will be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if Hal Lasky is notable, why not write a neutral article about him? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Sarandon

While I understand that you are trying to make a point with the addition of the issue surrounding the Leviev jewelry store picket line, you really should make an attempt to clarify what it is that you are saying with the addition. The New York Post source is from a gossip section. One of the three links you provided for the second sentence didn't even mention Sarandon at all. The presentation of this information, coupled with your edit summary, suggests a very POV slant to the addition. Given the fact that while one of the 4 sources involved actually mentions a response or position on Sarandon's part, it was not presented in the contribution at all, which would at least give the appearance of neutrality. However, since your edit summary (Information useful for future biographers concerning her position on Palestine-Israel Issue.) makes it clear that your addition is intended to reflect Sarandon's position on this issue, it is decidedly POV and would require a lot more fact and a lot less insinuation. The implication is that her attendance at this event reflects a political position. The brief mention in one of the sources, which is not included in the text added, actually presents her response to that charge and says that she intends to look into it.

If you would like to present this data in a more balanced way, I invite you to do so, but please strive to present it in a neutral, non-biased way. Other sources besides the New York Post would help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the history of this page, and the pattern of changes back and forth between you and several other editors, who have also expressed concern over the WP:POV of this material, the unreliability of the sources that you provided, coupled with the intent you express in your edit summaries regarding Sarandon's supposed stance re: Israel/Palenstine, it is clear that this violates the biography of living persons policy. You've accused others of attempting to hide or expunge information and censorship, all the while expressing your belief, first in the article itself and then in edit summaries, that her attendance at this event constitutes a political stance. I have taken this issue to the biography of living persons noticeboard and made a request for page protection until this issue is resolved. Please do not continue to return this information to the article while these issues are ongoing, or it may be taken for higher administrative review of behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I truly have no idea what Puerto Rican pottery has to do with Susan Sarandon, nor why it is relevant to this discussion. The issue of why this is not currently significant is based solely on two things. One is the fact that Sarandon has made no statement or issued a news release that specifies a stance on the Israel/Palenstine issue. The other is that the reliability of the two sources you've offered for this have been called into question, and therefore, by Wikipedia policy, this material needs to remain out of the article.

To assume, and then post material that would supposedly support the assumption that her attendance at the opening party for a jewelry store indicates support of a particular political stance is coatracking (see WP:COAT). It assumes facts not in evidence and therefore truly is a POV action. Further, your edit summaries indicate that your viewpoint lies in it being a political statement. You need to learn a bit about Wikipedia guidelines, including ones that tell all editors to assume good faith in editing, which you disregard when you charge a group of unrelated editors, who all express the same opinion, of censorship because they share the opinion that at this time, this information is non-pertinent and irrelevant to the article. Feel free to take it to a "higher up." What essentially has happened here is that a consensus has been reached regarding this issue, and apparently to your chagrin, it went against your opinion. There is no political agenda in that, save the desire to uphold the integrity of this article.

Again, as I did before, I urge you to review WP:BLP regarding what is, and is not, acceptable in an article regarding a living person. If you are a historian, then you know that nothing is established as fact until all points regarding the issue are in. If, in the future, this becomes a significant political issue regarding Sarandon, and it is widely and reported as a relevant issue, then that would be the time to revisit the issue. Until then, it doesn't belong.

On another issue, you've been asked on more than one occasion to sign your talk page posts by typing 4 tildes or hitting the signature button. Please make an effort to do so, since it is important for other editors to know who is saying what and why. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:PRP-Face.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:PRP-Face.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:PRP-Face.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]