User talk:LogicallyCreative
Welcome!
Hello, LogicallyCreative, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing large sections of articles
[edit]LogicallyCreative, please don't remove large sections of articles, as here, without at least some explanation on the article's talk page. It's also wise to summarize your reasoning in the edit summary and direct editors to the talk page for discussion e.g. "(see talk)". In this case, another editor and I spent considerable time working on the two sections that you removed. If you see a problem with those two sections that you were removing, please leave a note on the article's talk page so we may discuss the issue. Thank you.--chaser - t 02:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, do you have any sources for some of your recent additions to the article? The one's I'm concerned about are tagged with "citation needed". Thanks.--chaser - t 03:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Advice
[edit]LC, I think this edit summary indicates a misconception about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia operates by consensus. When we arrive at a consensus repeatedly, we write it down as a policy or guideline. We have a guideline about lead sections that says leads should be able to stand alone as a summary of the article and should include any notable controversies. Where there's uncertainty about the consensus or disagreement, we talk on discussion pages. We generally don't edit-war, and don't revert more than three times in 24 hours, per the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please keep all this in mind as you're editing.--chaser - t 01:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Chaser, I now understand. I am in full agreement that consensus trumps the individual. Thank you --- however, the lead comes across as a tad unbalanced and a little "axey-grindish" (shouldn't "past victories" then be mentioned in the same breath?). Also, I am truly sorry that I removed an entire section, as well, and thanks for your understanding and patience. I have had that happen to me before, and feel the same as you --- especially after all the work that I put into it. As far as the original changes were concerned, I honestly felt at that point that what was stated was way over the top on the "balance end". I am an "accuracy-fiend" --- and I felt that the tone just wasn't at all "even" or "encyclopedic", or for that matter, "fair".
- Just curious, but do you view yourself as "completely objective" pertaining to all things YTB --- or did you, or someone you know have a negative experience with them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicallyCreative (talk • contribs) 02:48, October 14, 2008
- I don't know anyone, no. But nor am I objective. The reason I started editing the YTB article is a desire to inform people so that they don't get scammed. Now that I'm editing it, I'm trying to do it fairly and neutrally, but that always becomes difficult whenever the sources themselves are so negative, and most of the news coverage about YTB focuses on these accusations. One way we can get around this and still use reasonably reliable sources is to use YTB's own information, as long as it's not unduly self-serving or contradicted by other sources. Cheers.--chaser - t 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks chaser. Great words and makes complete sense. LogicallyCreative (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lake Dolores
[edit]Yes, you can remove entire sections when they don't belong. If the material is more correctly contained in another article and in fact already exists there, it should be removed from another area. This article still contains large pieces of text from at least one other article that still needs to be removed. Links to the other articles for details are generally sufficient. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Big Lake Dolores Postcard.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Big Lake Dolores Postcard.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Newberry Springs from above.jpg
[edit]Thank you for uploading File:Newberry Springs from above.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
September 2009
[edit]
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Ian Stuart Spiro. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:WetSet2005.JPG
[edit]Thank you for uploading File:WetSet2005.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Park and waterslide from Interstate 15.jpg
[edit]Thank you for uploading File:Park and waterslide from Interstate 15.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Ted Nicolau.jpg
[edit]Thank you for uploading File:Ted Nicolau.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
[edit]Hello LogicallyCreative,
You need to keep in mind the Wikipedia policy, No Original Research when making edits such as [this] to Rodney King. It doesn't matter what you or I believe we see in a video, it is against Wikipedia policy to put it into Wikipedia without a reference, ie. the statement/opinion of a reliable source, especially with controversial issues such as this. And especially in a case of Biography of Living People.
This is just a strong suggestion, as it's a waste of your time to make edits that don't follow policy and will be removed very quickly! Happy editing! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)