User talk:Coachoconnorucla
June 2008
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Overpopulation has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam 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. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'googlepages\.com' . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
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. 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) 08:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Apologies for the huge block of information, but it's the easiest way to give you the information you need. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask! Gazimoff WriteRead 19:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
...has been answered, twice. I hope between us we've managed to help. Any questions - post 'em at User Talk:SheffieldSteel and I'll be glad to help. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- To give you a couple of general pointers- 1) include wiki formatting- see Help:Wikitext examples. It lacked internal links (created by enclosing items in [[double brackents]], but worse for readability, it didn't include section breaks. 2) Instead of placing the references as you've done, use wikipedia's built-in footnoting function, which will clean things up. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. If you look at the article's current state, you'll see that those are the changes that were made. One more point- don't put indents at the beginning of paragraphs; it causes them to block indent. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coachoconnorucla. I've removed the reference to “...And Gulliver Returns” in the Licensing parents article you created. We only use reliable sources in articles, and even then we don't promote the sources in the manner you did in that article with wording such as "a series of free e-books" and "The odd numbered books are fictional accounts of the visits and the even numbered books take a non-fictional approach that analyzes various issues, both pro and con." This reads too much like advertising. I note that in Overpopulation you inserted this text: "The free ebook series BLANKED (2008), ostensibly written by a college professor, under pen names, examines many of the problems of overpopulation, including illegal immigration and high fertility rates, and makes suggestions for controlling population excess. It is done with the series alternating between fictional and non-fictional books. It is available under the search title BLANKED" which has since been removed and for which you have received a warning from an automated bot. I hope you will recognise that our intention here is to build a free, accessible, reliable and unbiased encyclopedia of world knowledge, and that your help in doing that would be much appreciated. But that we cannot allow people to use Wikipedia to promote self-published ebooks. You need to approach a reliable publisher for your book. When the book has been published and peer-reviewed and the views contained within the book are seen as worthwhile and well researched, then at some point in the future a Wiki editor may well use your book as a reference source. People come to Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons and then decide to stay. I do hope this incident won't put you off staying here and helping out on the Project. Regards SilkTork *YES! 07:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Licensing parents
[edit]
I have nominated Licensing parents, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licensing parents. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SilkTork *YES! 07:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the articles by the philosophy professor and the child psychologist should be read, along with the 'And Gulliver Returns' books--before deletion is completed. Additionally the Stanford Law Review is developing an article on the subject. While the issue could fall under: eugenics, environmental influences rather than genetic influences: politics: overpopulation: sociological perspectives of the future; or other subjects, it has been debated pro and con in the media and the internet. If the deletion is just on the grounds that it is an unpopular opinion--I guess that's your prerogative. I just wonder if your credentials match those of the cited sources.