User talk:Kd3qc

Welcome!

Hello, Kd3qc, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! Mak (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Psychoeducation has been reverted.
Your edit here to Psychoeducation was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://newyorkcityvoices.blogspot.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's 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. 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) 05:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to MCS, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. sciencewatcher (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to MCS, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

that..1sciencewatcher (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you shouldn't just revert changes without explanation. Instead it is better to discuss on the talk page. Constantly reverting for no reason without discussion is classed as disruptive editing. I haven't reverted your edit yet, and I would recommend that you revert it yourself and discuss on the talk page if you don't see why your edit was inappropriate (I discussed the reasons in the edit summary, but I'm happy to elaborate or discuss further if you want). --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it is a fact that there are 299 articles about multiple chemical sensitivity on MEDLINE. Your aggressive ways must have some kind of agenda behind them. I don't know what else to say I will not revert this edit. However there are zero articles on Medline about gay ghosts. Therefore I will not fight you on that one.

Kd3qc (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of words of advice

Hi, I'm the current coordinator over at dispute resolution noticeboard. I've closed (that is, rejected) your request there because this dispute does not satisfy our requirement that there be extensive article talk page discussion before requesting assistance. (And as I said there, if the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations I make here, though hopefully that will not be needed.) However, I noticed a couple of things which you ought to know about. First, you've got this account, but you're also editing without logging in. That's strongly discouraged. For one thing, it makes it confusing for the people you're talking to, but in some circumstances it may also be considered to be sockpuppetry (whether you meant for it to be or not) and cause you to be blocked from editing. Always remember to log in and to sign your posts with four tildes. Second, you keep raising your credentials. The role of expert editors at Wikipedia is a long and difficult story. For a humorous point of view on how experts often fare here, see this, but for a more serious reflection on the question read Wikipedia:Expert editors and, with kind of an opposite slant, Wikipedia:Expert retention (and remember all of that material is essays and individual personal opinion, not the consensus or policy of the community). The role that experts should play was at least one of the reasons that one of Wikipedia's two founders, Larry Sanger, left Wikipedia to form a new encyclopedia, Citizendium, where experts would play a much larger role which has arguably been a failure simply because it did rely on experts while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That means, in turn, however, that anyone can edit any article about any subject here at Wikipedia and no particular expertise is needed. For that reason, asserting your credentials or demanding to know others' credentials is at best a waste of time and at worst can be seen as a kind of page ownership. Finally, it's sometimes best to avoid editing in areas of your own expertise because it can be very difficult to avoid the "Well! I just know because I'm an expert!" argument and to avoid a conflict of interest. As a lawyer with decades of experience I'm an expert in legal matters, but I almost never edit legal articles or legal matters here because every time I do I find myself falling into one of those traps. Others do a better job of avoiding it and do edit in their areas of expertise. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Jiang (September 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Jiang and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Kd3qc, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William Jiang concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:William Jiang, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:William Jiang

Hello, Kd3qc. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "William Jiang".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]