User talk:Here to sway

Welcome!

Hello, Here to sway, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Here to sway, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Here to sway! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 research articles Reply

Hello, regarding: Should the article be clearer about the number of research articles - "the 2 research articles"? I am not sure what you mean, if you mean these 2 research articles published Sep 10 2015, yes I think it is a good idea to explain there are articles 1 article about the new species, and 1 article about the cave containing the species. If you mean something else , let me know.

http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560.full

http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09561

I read you are putting a lot of effort into the article, good work. Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

external links in naledi

Hello,

Suggestion, instead of adding lists of external links for universities and authors, try building them into the article with the links in the reference citations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links.

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference citations

Hello, for your information, instead of writing references like Dirks et al. (2015), specifically use or reuse the reference listed in the reference list to note the reference. Otherwise editors may delete your entries as unreferenced in the future.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A major find - H. naledi

At least one notable scientist (in addition to Lee Berger) has said that it is a "major find", no matter the age of the fossils determined by dating. Does anyone have that reference? I think that it might belong in the article. Here to sway (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please will someone spoonfeed me

Please? Here to sway (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if I had made it less unclear that Nature (journal) was the reference, then that would have helped things along. Here to sway (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still participating in discussion?

Or just in revert-all mode? Samsara 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --Here to sway (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homo naledi protected, please talk on talk page

Hi! I've protected this article for 12 hours in the hope that some productive consensus can be built on the talk page. I see you have started having a discussion as of earlier today - please try and talk this out before the protection runs out. I will be leaving this message on other's talk pages as well. I'm sure everyone can come to an agreement. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is at this link [2], because that's where I moved the discussion of your reasonable suggestion. --Here to sway (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... even without pointing out any relevance pertaining to apartheid

I have said something that could be misinterpreted:

"In the context of South Africa, at least - even if ignoring apartheid (...)".

I meant, in part, that a point was important enough in regards to South African history, even without pointing out any relevance pertaining to apartheid. --Here to sway (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rising Star Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man of Steel. 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) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning for Homo naledi

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Samsara 12:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Star Expedition workshop [note: this text is to demonstrate a suggestion on another talk page, about what an article can look like about this subject]

The Rising Star Expedition workshop was held in May and June 2014 in a [room within] a vault at "Wits University". Some sources claim that it was the first workshop of its kind within the field of paleontology. The workshop resulted in a dozen research articles being written. One article by Berger et al. was published in eLife on 10 September 2015 proposing an undiscovered species, Homo naledi.

The authors of the eLife article on 10 September 2015 (about species H. naledi)

The 47 co-authors were Lee Berger, next co-author .... 47th co-author.

References

Here to sway (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Armstrong may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

vom 22. März 1965, mit: Billy Kyle, Tyree Glenn, Eddie Shu, Arvell Shaw und Danny Barcelona (Jazzpoint Records, 2000
]]Jeepers Creepers (song)]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Armstrong may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

vom 22. März 1965, mit: Billy Kyle, Tyree Glenn, Eddie Shu, Arvell Shaw und Danny Barcelona (Jazzpoint Records, 2000
|[[Muggles (recording)|[Muggles]]||1928<ref>Willems p.59</ref>|| ||

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Armstrong may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Armstrong

Hi, I share your interest in the music of Louis Armstrong, but I have two requests with regard to your recent edits. First, when you add a listing of a song that Armstrong recorded, you must include an inline reference to a reliable source in order to verify the addition.A mass of unverifiable additions does not improve an article. You are using something as the basis for your additions, so cite it when you add the song. Second, not every song that he recorded necessarily needs its own encyclopedia article, unless reliable sources have said enough about it to constitute a meaningful article. See ]]WP:N]]. Sometimes it is sufficient just to include it in a list. or instance, the most recent addition is [[Bye and Bye (Louis Armstrong repertoire)]. What is the reference?Ditto for all your unreferenced additions. Please take the time to reference your additions before adding more songs. Regards, Edison (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you creating redlinks such as Araby (Louis Armstrong repertoire)? The old link Araby was bad since it went to a disambiguation page, but a good link would be The Sheik of Araby which leads to the song. I question the need for individual articles abou each Armstrong recording of a song if all we have to go on is the Willems discography. And speaking of that, it is presumably the source of your edits, but the ref in the article does not include an edition, and page numbers could vary between editions. Please add to the reference the bibliographic info for the specific edition you are getting your info from, including ISBN. Thanks.Edison (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Homo naledi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of living persons policy

Hi HtS. I have noticed that some of the edits you're making to Homo naledi involve edit summaries that comment on the people involved in the article subject. I just want to highlight for you that Wikipedia is pretty strict about how we talk about living people to whom negative things on the internet could do harm. I know you're involved in an overarching editing dispute, and I imagine you're capable of working that out with the other participants through our usual dispute resolution processes, but please be mindful that things like "Berger has his excuses/explanation for why "his" articles were shot down)" are talking about a real person with a real life and reputation, and that what you say on Wikipedia is there forever, on the record, in Wikipedia's voice. You are welcome to your own opinions about people, but when making negative assertions on Wikipedia, you're expected to provide strong support for them and to only make them when it is directly relevant to the subject. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His reputation as a current employee of National Geographic is rock solid. --Here to sway (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Homo naledi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to review policies and guidelines

While it's unfortunate that your activity has led to a temporary block, during your period of inactivity please consider reviewing in their entirety: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Consensus (there are many more resources in the Welcome menu at the top of this page). It's important that all contributors to Wikipedia understand and abide by the same set of rules, otherwise arguments become circular and unproductive. If you have questions about these policies (which apply to all articles) ask (Wikipedia:Questions) or bring them up on the respective policy Talk pages. You might also see guidelines at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socking block

I've blocked you for two weeks from today for sock puppetry/block evasion with SPay Pal (talk · contribs · count). You're fortunate I didn't block you indefinitely. The only thing that militated in your favor were the apparently constructive edits you made to Louis Armstrong. Otherwise, your brief tenure here would indicate that you are a WP:SPA espousing fringe theories. Be careful, though. After this block expires, if there is any misconduct on your part - and that doesn't mean only sock puppetry - you risk being blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't last long. Your block is now indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]