User talk:Lone boatman/Archive

Welcome

Hello, Lone boatman, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hi, it`s Lokoal. Sorry for my English.

Hi, it`s Lokoal. Sorry for my English. All changes in articles about film grossing made from imdb.com and http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=1&sort=year&order=ASC&p=.htm information. I see, that many gross for different films have mistake and link to imdb.com . But in this site I see another gross. And I change gross on real data. I hope you understand me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokoal (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, but you need to provide references for the changes. Please let me know if you want any help with that. Your English is pretty good, by the way. :-) Lone boatman (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Bjørn Melhus

Hi I work for Bjørn and am updating his Wikipedia due to the lack of information available. --Kunstworker (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please note that Wikipedia can't accept copyrighted text for legal reasons. Please either re-write the text (it's not very long), or else see WP:IOWN for info on how to sort out the copyright problem. Please also see WP:Conflict of interest: it's probably not a good idea for you to write about your employer. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the education text I wrote? Is that also considered a copyright infringement? Even linking the gallery that represents him as an external link?--Kunstworker (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No indeed, and I've put that sentence back. You are of course welcome to link to the gallery that represents him: the problem was with copyright. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.WP:Conflict of interest My intention is to provide adequate and factual information regarding this webpage, as an educational tool, not to advance any particular position. If that is not clear then I apologize. --Kunstworker (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem: if you can write about your boss from a WP:Neutral point of view, then go for it. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy

Hello, Lone boatman/Archive! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, once I've been here a while longer (as mentioned on the CVU page) I will enroll. Lone boatman (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You should be find to enrol now, 1-2 months is fine :). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know how to use talk page

Hi, This is Duanchaobing, and can you kindly let me know how to use the talk page? I am now trying it by myself, anyone, please help, and thanks. Duanchaobing (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! Are you talking about your user talk page, or about the talk pages on articles? You might find this useful: Help:Using talk pages, and here is the Chinese version: zh:Wikipedia:讨论页. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Cernogoraz

Can I ask You why? Qwe144 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I just forgot to write reason for change. The reason is that facts stated in the concerned article is not confirmed by any international or Croatian source except the concerned Italian source. Therefore, information posted in the article might be incorrect and might be harassing for Croatian people and Giovanni Cernogoraz himself. Qwe144 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why listing a second nationality for someone, with a reliable source supporting it, is harassing for anyone. As I noted on the article talk page, the claim does need more sources, since there are many more sources online that only mention his Croatian nationality. But please see Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Consensus: you're going to get blocked if you keep removing that info about his nationality. If you don't want to get blocked, then please discuss the change on the talk page. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am just going to say thank you for accusing me for sockpuppet or whatever that is. I have been here on wikipedia for a couple of month, editing and helping with loads of things. E.g. nations at the 2012 Olympic Games, I have editted that when practically nobody else was doing it (honour to the users like Raymarcbadz, JoshMartini and lntoronto). And then you accused me for nothing, I don't know anything about IPs and that things, I only know that my IP is 192.168.1.4 and that's it, I don't know how to do anything with IP. 93.139.27.77 is right in some statements, if Austrians are not changing Zoeggler's nationality or some other sportsman's nationality, why should you change Cernogoraz's nationality. Anyway, I really don't care about this anymore, I have my own life. Arguing and war editting are not my favourite activities. Enjoy your war. Qwe144 (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your previous work. As I said on the talk page, if you can find reliable sources about other athlete's nationalities, then please add the referenced information to those articles too. But another editor has added referenced information about Cernogoraz's nationality: why should you keep removing it? 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

GeekScholars Movie News

Your actions are going to be reported as vandalism if you continue. GeekScholars Movie News is NOT a non-notable blog. This debate has already been had, and GeekScholars Movie News is comprised of experts, one of whom is under consideration to join the Indiana Film Journalists Association. Please desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoxinabox (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Where was this debate please? GeekScholars Movie News was speedy deleted for lack of notability. Lone boatman (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The page was, yes, but as a source of news, the outlet was verified as credible by many pages, hence all of the references. Please stop immediately. A news source does NOT need a wikipedia page to labeled as credible. As mentioned, the hosts of the show are experts in their field, and the team is led by an accredited film journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoxinabox (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw all the back and forth, as I watch some of these pages and I can also attest that GeekScholars Movie News is considered a credible sources comprised of experts in this particular realm of reviewing movie trailers JenniferMBentzen (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC).

Your very few edits so far look oddly similar to those of editor Mrfoxinabox. Lone boatman (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Audience response: "Do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g., user comments from Amazon.com, the Internet Movie Database or personal blogs), as they are self-published and have no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew.".

Also, you posted above that "This debate has already been had": where was this debate? Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Among other individuals on other pages. GeekScholars Movie News is not made of "user comments", but they come from experts published in their field (please see the biographies here: http://www.geekscholars.com/about-us/. And again, as mentioned, the lead host has also recently been asked to submit an application to the Indiana Film Journalists Association. I believe those credentials constitute someone as being a recognized expert in their field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoxinabox (talk • contribs) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Which other pages please? I can't find any mention of it. Being invited to submit an application is not evidence of a website's notability: please have a read of WP:WEB for more info. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, GeekScholars is published by another source, www.eclipsemagazine.com, which is run by a member of the Washington, D.C. Film Critics Association. As for the IFJA, the application is pending, last I heard. I will attempt to get confirmation of their inclusion in IFJA and send it to you GambitEyes (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC).

The only previous discussion I can find about this is your posting at Talk:Man of Steel (film)#Trailer, where the consensus appears to be that blog was not a reliable source, and your addition in this edit was reverted. Please don't add any more links to geekscholars.com until there's a wider consensus that it's a reliable source. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and regarding Talk:Man of Steel (film)#Trailer, there was a conversation that was had offline where the editor who removed link agreed that if GeekScholars Movie News would show more of their credentials on their website (which they have since done), they could come under consideration as credible source. At the time, there were no references on their site, and thus, impossible to prove their level of expertise, so removing them then was more than valid. There was a brief discussion here: Talk:Jack_Reacher_(film)#Marketing, but I do understand your concern, and your compromise about no further links until there is a consensus is perfectly reasonable and more than fair. And I do thank you for your efforts, as I know they are only to make Wikipedia a strong and valid source of information. Best, GambitEyes (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

With which editor did you have an offline conversation? Let's please bring them into this discussion. I've also listed geekscholars.com at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#geekscholars.com, for other editors to review whether the 26 existing links to that site in various film articles should be kept. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello Lone boatman! I'm Chip123456 and I'm happy to say I will be your academy instructor and it's great to have you on board! First of all as I'm sure you are aware vandalism is an everyday occurrence in Wikipedia, and we need to know how we deal with it correctly. We use The Four Steps of counter vandalism and that us to Identify it, remove it, warn the user and if need be, if they persist report to WP:AIV. I would suggest going through the links and also read WP:VAND. My first question is, have you got any questions? I'll be happy to answer! Once again, it's great to have you on board! Later on, I will go through your contributions so we have something to discuss about! Below is how to warn a user! Warning users, this maybe complicated to understand at the beginning as there are different types and levels of warning. To issue warnings and file reports, I use Twinkle. It's easy to use and you can preview the warnings before issuing them to the disruptive editor. I'm just going to go over the warning and reporting process with you! Below is an example if an editor who is vandalising on Wikipedia: 1. User has wrote 'Chris is gay LOL! :)' on Heathrow Airports article. This is their first edit on Wikipedia. Issue them a general note for vandalism (which van be found on twinkle by clicking the TW tab near the top right of the page and click on 'vandalism'). If you don't have twinkle, give them the first level warning under vandalism on WP:WARN. 2. The user has reverted your revert and has replaced the vandalism. Do the same process as above but give them a level 2 warning ( labelled as a caution on twinkle) 3. The user is now seen as purposely vandalising Wikipedia as they have gone onto HRH Princess Michael of Kents article and have placed 'Dfdfhhgrhdhdthdthdthdthdthgdhdthdhthhtdtfhdhdhdthdtfghfhtdh'. Like before give them a warning but now under level 3 (labelled as warning on Twinkle). This message informs the user that they maybe blocked if they continue. 4. The user has continued to vandalise in another article. Issue them their final warning (level 4 labelled final warning using Twinkle). If, you are dealing with a registered account (not an IP) it is probably clear that this is a vandalism only account and you can report at WP:AIV using twinkle. You click on the TW tab and click 'ARV'. Click on the 'select report type' and click vandalism. Then it asks you to tick a box, asking you why you have reported them. Click on 'Evidently a vandalism only account'. Note - you have an option to add a message. Then click 'submit query'. 5. If you have given the registered user another chance or the IP has continued to vandalise after the final warning, then report at WP:AIV using twinkle and click on 'vandalism after final warning' with optional message and submit query. If there is a user who already has a warning for vandalising Wikipedia (on the same day you revert the vandalism) there is no need to start from a general note. If they were given a caution, give them a warning, if they were given a final warning on the same day, report them. I hope this has helped, if it's confusing in any part, please ask me to explain further. Also see WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Note - don't have twinkle? Install it by going on your preferences then gadgets and click twinkle, make sure you save! I will look over your contributions after you draw a line under your previous ones. Of course, I will look at those, but I want to judge you from what I can see. I would suggest going through the recent changes and reverting vandalism when you are sure you've seen it! Once again, Welcome!--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 18:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chip. Looking forward to your feedback. Lone boatman (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I, I will look forward to it as well! What I'd like you to do is take a look at the task sheet - User:Chip123456/CVUA. When you have completed all of that, I will go through it. There is no rush. So I can ensure that my students have learnt, you will complete a short test at the end, but I will tell you more when we cross that bridge. Do you have any questions? Ps, I am UTC+1, and the next time ill be logged on will be about 1630. Regards,Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sham Ahmed

That one struck me as a G3 (a blatant hoax) rather than an attack page, particularly since the person in question doesn't seem to exist. Valenciano (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see recruiters in London with that name on a certain well-known social networking site. Might be someone's idea of a joke, I guess, but it makes disparaging remarks along with the blatant hoax assertions, so you can add the hoax tag as well if you like. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted now anyway! Valenciano (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Right-wing populism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got the wrong editor: check the edit history, it wasn't me doing the edit-warring. Lone boatman (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You were restoring material that another editor removed, but that amounts to the same thing. By the way that editor does not think he was edit-warring either.[1] TFD (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored whole sections that were deleted, just once, at the time that you put this warning tag above on my talk page. That's not repeated, and it's not WP:Edit warring. Lone boatman (talk)

Satellite Spies

I see edit warring started again as soon as Shirik's protection expired. I have blocked DunedinYoh for three days; if the IPs return, it may need to be protected again. I have trimmed out the bit about their squabble with Lovey, and all the trademark links at the end, which are only relevant to that; maybe the edit-warriors can settle for a version that doesn't mention the dispute at all.

I actually wonder whether we need this article at all - do they meet WP:BAND? The discography links to Reaction Records, but that was a label that died in 1967. I am seriously considering AfD - being a focus for edit-warring is not a reason for deletion, but if notability is marginal it could be taken into account. Let them have their squabble somewhere else. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: they do not appear in Allmusic. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a long history of edit-warring on there, you're right. But here's some evidence of notability: according to [2], they had one song in the New Zealand Top 40 Singles for 21 weeks, with a highest position of #9. They were one-hit wonders in one country, and not hugely notable, but they do seem to meet WP:BAND. Lone boatman (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I guess the thing to do is trim it back to what can be sourced, remove references to their trademark squabbles with Loveys, block any edit warriors and hope they get bored and go away. Protect again as a last resort. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep it in my watchlist, thanks. Lone boatman (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Alaska State troopers TV

Hi Lone Boatman, thanks for taking the time to look at my edits I am new to this sort of thing and not even sure if I am using the talk page correctly......!

Just one thing, you re wrote the passage about the blue Tick Heeler puppies so that it did not resemble the original article I had taken the excerpt from in any way so I have re instated the original text as you have so kindly put the reference /citation in for me which I am still trying to work out how to do. I realise you are incredibly busy helping those of us who make beginners errors but if you are going to edit stuff it would be great if you could actually read the text first. One of most peoples gripes in this world is the miss communication of facts.

Having said that the rest of the edit looks OK a lot shorter than mine. the other piece that you have asked for a citation on has come from watching the shows and getting to know the regular Troopers names, so I haven't got a clue how you would reference that???? Potentially Season and and 2 DVD's?

thanks again

Becksalaska — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becksalaska (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your edits. Don't worry about being new to it: we're all learning here. The problem with providing information from watching the show is that it can't be verified: have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability to learn more about what I mean. So what's needed is citations from reliable sources. I found one for the quote about the puppies, but more are needed. Just let me know if you'd like a hand with that. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk)

Hi There, the link for the face book fan page mentioned in my in my original text is here,http://www.facebook.com/pages/Howie-Peterson-from-Alaska-State-Troopers/189638324412356 so can I now put that back in. YEAH looking forward to trying to working out the complicated looking how to guides on adding citations lol

With verification, on the shows and the troopers who are in them : as it's in the public domain and easily viewable on Nat Geo that should be verification enough surely. it's only when they are not easily attainable verification should be necessary.:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becksalaska (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's try to find some references on the Nat Geo site to support it. Unfortunately Facebook isn't considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources), but I'm sure we can find some. Lone boatman (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

hi Ya,

With the Face book link, I am merely stating the fact that the page exists and by providing the link to the page is the verification of that fact, I am not quoting any information posted on the page or stating that anything written on there by the fans is true or false

I also still don't think any more citation is needed on the mention of the troopers actually in the show. As I said before the shows are in the public domain in video taped evidence form which in it's self is irrefutable. If any one were to try to challenge the fact of any troopers appearance then they need only to be directed to the shows themselves. So if any citation is needed then it is just to say that these officers appear regularly in seasons 1,2 and 3

Some of the troopers are mentioned on the nat geo site http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/alaska-state-troopers/ as well as in the DPS quarterly's and other information on the DPS site it's self http://www.dps.state.ak.us/PIO/newsletter.aspx.

Do you agree now? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becksalaska (talk • contribs) 07:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A few points:

• there's no need to say that a Facebook page exists. A Facebook page exists for every show on TV, and you can find it in seconds.
• we need a citation to support the list of troopers' names in the show. Otherwise I could put my friend's name down, and write "he's a trooper on the show, just watch the show, you'll see him". Hearsay and personal testimony aren't verification: we need sources to verify it: see WP:Reliable sources. I've found a few sources online to support some of them, but more are needed.
• please don't keep pasting in the quote in from the government PR sheet: that's the right thing to do in journalism, but in an encyclopedia we should instead use the source of that quote (I found the URL for it) as a reference for a description of what happened.

OK I'm starting to find this irritating now as you really need to read what people have written before you comment, the Face book Page is not for the show but one of the Troopers on the show and yes I felt it necessary to mention it as it's a nice thing, it is also a verified fact and as such I can place it on the page and it should not be challenged. As mentioned before I am not quoting anything from the page or relying on any information contained in the page its self i am simply saying it exists so does not need to be cited as per the Verification rules you like to quote

As for not using quotes in the piece, perhaps you need to read the attached where it says we can use them they just need to be verified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate." which you very kindly did for me as per the editors Guidelines so that can also be reinstated as per the rules.

As for reliable sources, thank you I have, have you? There is nothing in the text that I read stating that Video tape is an unreliable source. In fact it does not mention Video at all anywhere because this rule is for text based copy only so until it does state that it is an unreliable method of verification I can in fact rely on it as per the rules

The true fact is Video tape is one of the most reliable sources there is and when provided in a court of law is never dismissed as hearsay or personal testimony lawyers have to work very hard to prove that a piece of Videotaped evidence is in fact false or doctored, you really need to know a bit more about law before you speak. To be perfectly truthful with you, you are just being slightly ridiculous with the comment about your friends and you know

So having gone through all your challenges, I think based on the rules you have quoted I can in fact add the piece I wrote without any further challenges.

thanks Becca Becksalaska (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be irritated. But Wikipedia has rules about what can and can't be used to verify something. I've added several references for some of the names that are there, but more are needed. I'm happy to help you with this, but we need to use WP:Reliable sources. You can't use a videotape that you made, but if it's available on a published DVD for which we can quote some identifying information, then yes, that would do. Lone boatman (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the quote, we're not writing about what someone said, but about what happened. Why do you need to use the exact quote? What's wrong with writing about it in our own words? Lone boatman (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what I mean about you not taking the time or bothering to read the text before you change it or respond to people

The Quote is what I would like on there because it has the correct facts in it and when people are reading articles it doesn't matter if it is in a newspaper or on-line encyclopaedia, Direct quotes hold more weight with the reader when it comes to believing them to be factually correct, that and the re written version you have placed on there is very incorrect. it was not the owners that named the puppies it was the it was the Junior volunteers at the centre that named the pups the version you have on there is against WP rules and rightly so because you are misleading people.

Also with our conversation here. I did not once say I had made a video tape and this is were I was sourcing the information from (VT is what TV shows used to be taped on before everything became digital- call me old fashioned but this is the term I still use :)), I was referring to the shows in every part of my reply to you and Yes there are published DVD's of all 3 seasons, I have 2 of them at home.

and I still would like the link to the fan page replaced please :)

BeccaBecksalaska (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do correct the facts if I've got any wrong. Please don't re-add the Facebook fan page. If I don't remove it, another editor will: please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

CAPTCHA

It may have been badly added, but this edit wasn't vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Please assume good faith unless patently obvious, thanks! Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor who added it has been almost exclusively adding links to a single blog, full of articles posted by someone with a name very similar to the editor's account name. Occasional linkspamming isn't quite the same thing as vandalism, but a linkspam-only account is pretty close.

Stephen Leather

There seems to be a problem developing with the biography page for Stephen Leather. The section entitled 'Criticisms' has been deleted and re-added a number of times over the last few days. The article used as reference is being disputed. As I see you have just re-instated the section, I thought I would ask for your help. I deleted the initial insertion but as you can see in the history, it has gone backwards forwards continually since.

Would the following Wiki policies apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopaedic. Negative material about living persons may violate privacy policies or damage the person's reputation, therefore, strict rules are in place to govern such information. See Biographies of living persons for details.

Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies" There may be times when critical material should be presented in a dedicated "Criticism" or "Response" section within an article, but entire articles dedicated to Criticism are discouraged. Articles dedicated to negative material may be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited. Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to (such as a particular event, policy, or product).

When the sources indicate that a section should be devoted to third-party opinions on a topic, avoid using the term "criticism" in the section title. Although the word "criticism" can sometimes encompass both positive and negative assessments, it often carries a negative connotation. Alternative words, such as "evaluation," "review," "critique," or "assessment" have a similar meaning as "criticism", but without the negative implications. The word "reception" is a neutral term that is often used in section titles in articles about books and films. The term "criticism" may be appropriate if it is commonly used by the sources which discuss the topic. Likewise, sections or articles dedicated to "controversies" should be avoided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Sorry, I'm not very good at this sort of thing but do wonder if it's about time, someone stepped in to prevent this from escalating further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaciousphil (talk • contribs) 11:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot to sign it Sagaciousphil (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Cricitism section should be merged in if the content is encyclopedic. I'll have a go now. Lone boatman (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Had a look, and can't see anything wrong with the sources. I've renamed it to "Allegations..." since the section is about one specific allegation. Somebody is logging in from various IP addresses in Bangkok, however, and either removing the sourced allegations or adding unsourced chat to the article saying that the allegations are being contested. That's not being posted by anybody you know, is it? 12:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'm still a little concerned that only 'Allegations' are included therefore not giving a balanced account, especially as this is a BLP. I wonder if the allegations are 'contentious material' and the only source may be construed as 'tabloid journalism'? I can't find any other references to this. I've never been to Bangkok, so don't know anyone there and I'm at the other side of the world, so it's definitely not me! I just felt the chopping and changing on the page was getting out of hand. Sagaciousphil (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It could certainly use more sources: I'll try to find some. Lone boatman (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Sagaciousphil (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi, I've just looked over your contributions. Its great to see you using twinkle to revert. Also, I'm seeing a nice lot of warnings going out, which is great. Please take a look and make your way through the task sheet. If you need any help completing it, or are stuck, please tell me. I'd also like you to do a self-evaluation. Tell me what you think you are a) doing well and b) what you think you could improve on.Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 19:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that sheet only for my use, or should I copy it to a subpage of User:Loan boatman to edit it? Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Use that sheet - when you gave completed the course it will be moved to your own page.--Chip

¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

rhosymynydd

You just requested that we not add unprofessional links or promotional links. Do you have an ostomy? Can you possibly imagine what life is like for a child with a bag. We are pensioners, my husband is my full time carer and I am an ilsotomate and have several other illnesses, I am bed bound. We run a NON COMMERCIAL, NON PROFIT website providing information only. There is no advertising of any kind on our site. We pay for everything. Every link on our website is there at no charge, We encourage anyone who has an ostomy product to have a link on our site if they wish. There is no charge or any money or goods exhcanging hands. We make ourselves and pay for all the ostomy puppets - we have set up funding streams in place all over the world to pay for these puppets through independent private individuals. No profit is made on the puppets. All help is voluntary. How can that possibly infringe on Wikipaedia's policies? If you were a 5 year old child facing surgery to remove your bladder or bowel, would you rather go it alone, or would you rather have a lookalike puppet (we match hair and skin colour or interest) whose bag you can change just like your own to be your talking buddy? (They are proper ventriloquist puppets 21" in length, some have removable clothes. We also produce catheter puppets for those with internal bags that irrigate and recently had a 3 yr old child learn to irrigate himself on one of our puppets. Instead of ransacking the net for mistakes, I suggest you spend some of your time volunteering your time and your own money doing what we do. We wrote a book (not promoted on wikipaedia to help ostomates, the royalties are ploughed back into funding the puppets. If you were going to get a bag, wouldn't you like to read about children who go through this and take strength from that fact? Come on lighten up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhosymynydd (talk • contribs)

Your organization sounds wonderful, but that's not the point. The worthiness of an organization, and its non-profit status, don't give it a free opt-out from the Wikipedia rules on WP:SPAM. Please have a read of WP:Conflict of interest: this isn't the place to promote your group, and you've been warned at your talk page about it several times already. Your edits today (like all your edits so far) have consisted solely of adding external links to your group's website to several articles. I reverted it from just one. Please stop re-adding it. If your organization is notable, someone will write an article about it. Thank you. Lone boatman (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

from opusfiftyseven

Hallo, Lone boatman. First of all, thanks for your contributions to "Massimo Di Gesu". A colleague has just read more carefully your note re. "one performance / repertoire" (it dates from this morning). I won't linger on the subject "repertoire" and what both musicians and dictionaries intend by this term, but I need your answer to the following questions: 1. what or who allows you to be so positive about the number of performances any single artist gave of Di Gesu's works? 2. besides, why do you now need to have additional citations for the "collaborations and partnerships" section, whereas this section was fine till yesterday (not to mention that I've hardly seen on a Wikipedia page so many references/citations)? and which sort of citations do you need?

Thanks - Opusfiftyseven (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello opusfiftyseven. We have no idea how many performances any single artist gave of Di Gesu's works, apart from what's referenced. The article presently only has references that the works were performed once, so we should only assert that it was performed once. Regarding the need for additional citations, I could see that the page was being edited, and there was a single "citations needed" tag at the end of the sentence, so out of courtesy I held off from tagging the section. But it's been a few days now, so it's time to either cite the assertions made about performances, or remove them as described in WP:Biographies of living persons. If you need help with the referencing, please let me know. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Its richmondpeck. You just sent me a message about my update to David Richmond-Peck. I am David. I was just trying to correct info about myself. --Richmondpeck (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Richmondpeck

You contacted me about my update on David Richmond-Peck and if it was accurate. I am David. Is there something else I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondpeck (talk • contribs)

Hello. The information that's in there is supported with a reference, so if the information needs an update or a change, you'll need to provide a reference from a reliable source to support the change: please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have a read through WP:BLPEDIT and the following sections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

re. opusfiftyseven's contribution

Dear LB, I am a colleague of opusfiftyseven's and am trying to help with this profile project.
I was told about the citation-issue re. the "partnerships" section: this section is supported by the same sources (ref. 1.2.3.4., as indicated at the bottom item of the list) as those which corroborate also the other section's contents; besides, additional references have been given as regards those performances not yet included in some of the sites referred to.
Nevertheless, your "citations needed" tag is still there, therefore:

• either the whole page needs the tag,
  
• or you probably mean that we have to link ref. 1. or 2. or 3. or 4. to any single musician-performance mentioned in the "partnerships" section.
  

Could you please let us know why the tag is still there?

I've changed the section tag to individual tags for the remaining unreferenced assertions. Lone boatman (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As regards your small tag to "gravitational impulse", this is the rephrased version of "perceivable necessity" (CEMAT) and "magnetic relation" at the basis of a "narrative drive" (ARCTURUS, edition db).
On second thoughts: if it can bypass the concept of literal quotation, we could resort to merging two of the above fragments and replace 'gravitational impulse' with "magnetic drive". Regards. M Palanck (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M Palanck (talk • contribs) 11:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What does "magnetic drive" or "gravitational impulse" mean in the sense of musical composition? Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a concept hinting at the "attraction" which can be more commonly experienced in the field of chordal functions typical of tonal harmony, and which can be extended to phrasing and form: more or less the effect generated by a German sixth (as alteration of a preceding sub-dominant) in close relation to a 4/6 tonic or root dominant chord.
M Palanck (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to use those widely-used musical terms then, for a WP:Neutral point of view, rather than poetic language. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've followed your suggestion re. the performers list.
The expression in the 'style' section is now the most straightforward and concise possible.
Hope everything is now fine according to the Wikipedia requirements. Thanks for your help.
Regards
M Palanck (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's looking much better now. Thanks! Lone boatman (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

lucknow

Can you please tell me when did air arabia, etihad, bahrain air, bangkok airways, dragonair etc start there service from lucknow because is thing I am lose from this world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar Dubasia (talk • contribs) 11:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. But please don't keep adding unsourced content, or blank out things you disagree with. Lone boatman (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User:Chip123456/CVUA's talk page. Marked the first bits :)--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sai Baba

I have been working on this article for years. The previous version was agreed on by all parties and was stable for a long time. The information I took out does not belong in that section and is not relevant to the history of Sai Baba. So I am removing it. It was not in previous versions and doesn't belong in the article.

- You can not block me, If you are an administrator and have the power to block than you shouldn't be editing this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.234.38 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's referenced. It's relevant. Quite deleting it or an admin will block it, and will protect the page if necessary. Lone boatman (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for dealing with that IP vandal on Eurovision Song Contest 2013. I have a feeling there is a language barrier as I have politely asked the user to provide a reason on the article talk page, but they just keep reverting, I paused at 2RR before I got myself into trouble lol. Wesley Mouse 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lone boatman (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Marcus Bleasdale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DRC

Richard Turner (magician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mohammed Ali

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Yanchan1989

Don't worry, the user has already been AIV'd and won't be reverting that A7 for much longer. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We should probably keep the article on watchlist though, as it'll likely be created again immediately under an SP account. Persistence like this looks like "my boss told me to write a WP article about the company". :) Lone boatman (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. It's been speedied twice. Third time's a charm, maybe? Nah. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the article? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edmond Travel Limited. Lone boatman (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nevermind, found it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that if it's created again with a different username (if it's the same person AIV them again), CSD it, then make a request at WP:RFPP for creation protection (if it's the same user a block would probably be better). Then again I'm not an admin, so who knows. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Task

Good work on the task sheet. I will Mark your progress tomorrow and get back on how you are doing.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because of certain things, Riley Huntley will be taking over as your instructor, you will be doing Exactly the same work and the same task sheet. The reason is, things are a bit busy on this project and other projects that I'm involved in. I will chime in again. I hope this is ok. Thanks.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 08:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the instructor change. You will be using the exact task page that you were using before except it will be in my userspace (User:Riley Huntley/CVUA). So far you have been doing a great job so keep up the good work! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 08:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks. Lone boatman (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Eugenio Corecco

Please can you help me inserting the template of translation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fracati2 (talk • contribs)

Done! Thanks for writing the article. Lone boatman (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fracati2 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian Pharmaceutical Students' Association

I just rewrote the article again please read it and evaluate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedaali2 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thanks. I've just suggested at the AFD that the article should be kept. Lone boatman (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Devart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kylix and SQL Server

Air Mantra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Economic Times

Claudia Brücken (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andy Bell

Global Entrepreneurship Week (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kansas City

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Eternity clause

Hello. Someone has blocked me from editing on the "deutsch" article for Eternity clause. What did I do wrong to get blocked? To my recollection I several times took out the German word "andere" from in front of "Verfassung" because it says that the German people now have a constitution ("Verfassung") even though they have not adopted a constitution. It is not possible for the Basic Law of Germany to be redefined as a "constitution" without the German people doing so in accordance with Article 146. The full sentence in German where I removed the word "andere" states, "Bis zu einer Ersetzung des Grundgesetzes durch eine andere Verfassung (Art. 146 GG)[1] kann die Ewigkeitsklausel nach heute herrschender Meinung nicht aufgehoben werden."

How do I challenge what has been written in the Deutsch article on this topic? It is just not correct for false statements (lies) to be made on Wikipedia. You, yourself, agreed with me on that. Are you an administrator for Wikipedia? Apparently, an administrator blocked me on the deutsch article at someone's request. Thanks for being patient with me in what I am writing on the English Eternity clause. I am trying to follow the policies of Wikipedia, but want to present the truth only.--Ofthehighest (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lone boatman, I did not remove maintenance templates purposefully. And I only remember removing the text of the Eternity Clause article once. But there are three warnings here. That I do not understand. It is my intention to follow Wikipedia's policies, not "DISRUPT". Apparently, from reading your talk page here, you have been a part of Wikipedia for a long time and are giving much good advice to many users here. Thanks for your advice. I do not want to get booted off of Wikipedia, especially not for writing the truth.--Ofthehighest (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry for the delayed reply - I've beeen away for a few days. I'm not an administrator, but I would be glad to help if I can. According to your German Wikipedia contributions page, you were blocked indefinitely for "Sperrumgehung, keine Besserung erkennbar: Verfassungstroll". My German isn't very fluent, but it appears that an administrator on German Wikipedia thinks you've been trying to bypass a block. The administrator who blocked you is Cú Faoil, and you can find their talk page at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Cú Faoil. That administrator would probably be the best person to talk to in the first instance. If you think you've been blocked unfairly, then you could always appeal the block. I know how to do that on English Wikipedia, but each language version has separate customs of administration, so I would have to do some reading to work out how they handle block appeals on the German one. If you have any questions on how to improve the English version of the article Eternity clause, then please feel free to ask here, and if I don't know the answer I'll find you some more experience editors who do. Yours, Lone boatman (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and offer to help. I will be asking you questions and for your help, no doubt. To my knowledge there was no "block" on the German Eternity Clause page. I accessed the page several times in the same way that I access the English Wikipedia page. And what is a "Verfassungstroll"? As I have stated, Germany does not have a constitution. It is clear to me now that the government wants everyone to believe that Germans do have a "constitution," (Verfassung), but the law (Article 146) makes it very clear that they have a "basic law" until a "constitution" is adopted by the free decision of the German people. A free decision of the German people requires a referendum. This should have happened in 1990 or shortly thereafter, but apparently the government does not want to lose the many illegal changes it has made to the Basic Law. West Germany has not been a democracy since 1968. There is a Guantanamo Bay in Germany. Look at Article 10 paragraph (2) sentence 2, where the jurisdiction of the Bundesverfassungsgericht established in Article 93 paragraph (1) 4a was unlawfully given over to the Bundestag in 1968. This change was also noted in the last sentence of Article 19 paragraph (4), totally eliminating legal recourse in a court of law. And it is not used only for terrorism, but for any crime the executive chooses to apply it to. Thanks for your assistance and I will look for more citations as you suggest.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Is it possible for the German authorities to accuse me of being a "Verfassungstroll" and have me blocked from the English Wikipedia Eternity clause article? I have eliminated several statements I wrote where you asked for "citations needed."--Ofthehighest (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Later, after finding citations, I may add them again. I have also changed the one remaining sentence where you have asked for citation. What I have written there is only an introduction to a list of "the basic principles" and a different way of saying that the eternity clause and Articles 1 and 20 do not allow state authority to eliminate democracy. But let me know if you still think it needs a citation.--Ofthehighest (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I don't know whether the German-language admins pass warnings on to English-language ones. I'm a bit worried that the article is straying slowly back towards an essay again. Please don't return to adding analysis to the article, even if you are convinced that the laws you've cited bear out your assertions. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never thought that I was analyzing and applying my assertions to the law, but simply reading the plain language of the law, e.g., the language of the eternity clause is plain. And how else is anyone to read Article 146 which very clearly distinguishes "this Basic Law," (i.e., the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany), from a "constitution"? It is the plain language of Aricle 146 which says that "this Basic Law" is not a "constitution". It is a well know documented fact (also written on Wikipedia in other articles) that the Parliamentary Council in 1949 wanted Germany to be united under a "constitution," not by accession under Article 23 as the West Germany legislature insisted in 1990. And after using Article 23 they eliminated it and amended Article 146 to read as you see it on the government's web-sites today. Even in its present form it is very clear that "this Basic Law" is not a "constitution" (not a "Verfassung"). I do not want to make personal assertions, but present the truth here on Wikipedia. Thanks for your advice and I will do my best to stay away from writing a personal essay.--Ofthehighest (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that WP:Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have now read the "WP:Truth" and understand Wikipedia's policy on "truth," i.e., needing verification from a recognized source. I will do my best to stay within these guidelines. Thanks for your help.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

You or someone else has twice taken out a clause in one sentence leaving the sentence absolutely false. You cannot write, "i.e., illegal amendments of this basic law cannot be abbrogated or infringed upon, neither by additional legislation of the Bundestag (Federal legislature), nor by an executive order, nor by an assertion, opinion, decision or rule of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)." Whoever removed the first clause of the i.e., is saying that illegal amendments are valid in the law. Not so!

It must read, "i.e., the will of the people regarding illegal amendments of this basic law cannot be abbrogated or infringed upon, neither by additional legislation of the Bundestag (Federal legislature), nor by an executive order, nor by an assertion, opinion, decision or rule of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)."

I am correcting it again. Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it say "the will of the German people" in the Constitution? If so, please cite it. If it's your own personal analysis, please remove it. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Article 20 paragraph (2) says very clearly, "All authority emanates from the people. It is exercised by the people..." The Parlamentariche Rat acted on behalf of the German people when enacting Article 20 paragraph (2) in 1949. Article 20 paragraph (1) also says that the Federal Republic of Germany is a "democratic" state. Clearly the eternity clause's prohibition against illegal amendments to "this Basic Law" is the direct "will of the German people." That is what the democratic rule of law is all about. You, yourself, wrote that "certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed."

No, the sentence "The eternitc clause and "the basic principles" of 'Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany" comes from the same source referenced/cited in the sentence preceding it. The blog you are referring to is my blog (ofthehighest.wordpress.com) where I have referenced that sentence from the source (Quo vadis, Germany? Current Concerns 15 July 2012) I referenced in the eternity clause article on Wikipedia. I am not trying to be disagreeable here, but that sentence was not taken from my blog, but from the source I cited/referenced, i.e., "Quo vadis, Germany?" I hope you understand that my entries here on Wikipedia are not to propagandize, but inform. Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add links to your blog as references: it's a WP:Conflict of interest and blogs are not considered a WP:Reliable source. Lone boatman (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you always taking "the democratic rule of law" out of the sentence before "Rechtsstaat"? This is an English article on the eternity clause. I find it inappropriate that you only want the German word here. Obviously, the Basic Law is based upon the democratic rule of law, otherwise it would not have been allowed to be a member of the European Union (EU). It seems to me that you are agreeing with the German article which states that the rule of law is not in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. I wish you would start editing the German article. It is full of false assertions, ABSOLUTELY FALSE assertions, many without sources. Please explain why you have repeatedly taken out "rule of law". A "Rechtsstaat" is a state that is governed by a democratic rule of law, the opposite being auhoritarianism. Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you're double-posting all of these questions to the article's talk page, I'll reply there. Lone boatman (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to see that I am wasting my time here on Wikipedia. Why? Because nothing is secure, not even the truth with verifiable sources can be told here on Wikipedia. It doesn't stick. At this point I suggest you write the Wikipedia article on the Eternity Clause. Afterall, you are censoring me on everything I write. Good luck. I'll check back in a few days to see if you are truly a believer in the basic democratic principles. If you like you can draw from my blog, http://ofthehighest.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/what-is-the-eternity-clause/ I have included in my blog the sentence you wrote, "The eternity clause establishes that that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed."--Ofthehighest (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, since you're double-posting all of these questions to the article's talk page, I'll reply there. Lone boatman (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of referencing my blog. I have never done that. I referenced "Current Concerns," an article called "Quo vedas, Germany?" This is a reputable/reliable Swiss publisher. I have also referenced this publisher in my blog. And please stop accusing me of participating in an "editing war". It is you who have wrongfully removed material by accusing me of referencing my blog. I have not done as you claim. And also stop removing the words "democratic rule of law" in front of (Rechsstaat). This is an English article on the eternity clause, not a German one. The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany has the rule of law established in "the constitutional order" of the Basic Law. Obviously, the Federal Republic of Germany has the rule of law in its Basic Law, otherwise it would not have been permitted into the European Union. Do you not find it interesting that the Deutsch article on Wikipedia for the eternity clause claims that there is no Rechtsstaat within the Basic Law? That is only one of the false statements made on that site. Another false statement is that the Basic Law is the "constitution" for the Federal Republic of Germany. Utterly false. If you have any constructive additions to the English article, you are welcome. I appreciate that you added the sentence "The eternity clause makes it clear that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed." And also where you added the words "three United Nations resolutions" before the source I referenced. Thank you.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,it's assassasts. I hope the visual editting is coming to live soon!

I am wondering if I should try to learn the wiki makeup language now that there is a prototype of easier editting. I am new to all the editting processes, I do find it time-consuming and a great hurdle for me really writing up new articles in microbiology which is the feild I am interested in. thanks a lot for your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassasts (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the article. You can always test out wiki markup language in your sandbox: User:Assassasts/sandbox. Give it a try! Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Lone boatman (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also find this useful while you're learning wikicode: WP:Cheatsheet. Lone boatman (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A1 Academia Editing

Hello Lone boatman. I received a message from you regarding editing of the A1 Academia web page. I had previously removed the redirect to A1 ERP web page and unfortunately I did not include any comments as to reason for that.

The reason I wanted to stop A1 Academia from redirecting to A1 ERP is because they are basically two different products. While A1 Academia started as an offshoot of A1 ERP, it has subsequently got a life of its own, with its own codebase, architecture, sponsors, community of developers, who would like to enhance it further and who would want it to have a different identity from A1 ERP. This can further be demonstrated by use of two different websites; A1.iO for A1 ERP and Academia.A1.iO for A1 Academia.

By using A1 ERP as the wiki page for A1 Academia, interested readers would get the wrong picture as these two target completely different markets, with A1 ERP being a specialist ERP for Defense & Public Sector, while A1 Academia will henceforth be a product specifically built for Academia.

Kindly consider my request.

Regards Ngigiwaithaka (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for A1 Academia to redirect to A1 ERP, since the former is mentioned on the latter page. You also can't simply blank an article unless it's something that you created and there have been no substantial edits other than yours. If you want to delete the redirect, you can request deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Loan boatman The reason that A1 Academia is mentioned in A1 ERP is because if I remove A1 Academia from A1 ERP, there will then be no reference for A1 Academia. On blanking of the text, my intention was to remove the redirect, then create a page for A1 Academia that reflects the new direction. If I was to request the original author to do this, would that be in order?

Regards Ngigiwaithaka (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the page's edit history: it has had many editors since May, so no we can't just ask the article's creator. Since you're hoping to improve A1 Academia with a re-write, may I suggest that you create the new, re-written A1 Academia article in your user sandbox User:Ngigiwaithaka/sandbox? Once you're happy with the result, you can then copy and paste the contents to A1 Academia. Please let me know if you need a hand with that. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hey, I just looked over your contributions and you seem to be doing a great job! Having any problems? Need any help? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 23:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks! Lone boatman (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		message Settdigger (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your logic. :)

Settdigger (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. And you're welcome for the assistance. It's so hard to maintain WP:NPOV on BLPs of politicians, and I'm sure I'm as guilty of POV edits as anyone. "Many eyes on the problem", and all that. :) Lone boatman (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

MBN

why would you want to delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinkFarm (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you trying to delete page Memphis Barbecue Network?— Preceding unsigned comment added by FinkFarm (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Like it says on the deletion tags you keep deleting from the page, it's WP:SPAM and it's WP:Copyright violations. It needs a complete re-write. Please stop pasting copies of a blatant advertising page onto Wikipedia. Lone boatman (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The first time the page was deleted there was NOTHING except what I had written and was working on. I'm trying to get the page up with references so users like you will stop DELETING it stating it is not noteworthy or discussed elsewhere. there is a reference to it in the wikipedia article BBQ pitmasters. KCBS has a wikipage but not NBM. I am trying to help others such as myself who are interested in BBQ competitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinkFarm (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea for an article, but you're going about it all wrong. Try going to the Wikipedia:Article wizard, and writing about the group, but write it in your own words. Don't copy the group's page to the article: write about what you know about it, what's WP:Notable about it, and so on. Make sure you write from a WP:Neutral point of view, don't write it like marketing, or an admin will just delete it again. Let me know if you want any help writing it. Lone boatman (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ETERNITY CLAUSE

Lone boatman, thanks for changing the word from integral to intrinsic. And also thanks for putting in "aimed at preventing" - it's more positive than "barriers". Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, your argument above is absolutely false and you are continuing to vandalize this article. You posted the original sentence as follows: "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by Parliament." In fact, you plagiarized the sentence from National Review's article that you referenced (cited). I changed the sentence to "The eternity clause establishes that certain fundamental principles within this democracy can never be changed, not even by parliament," which was not plagiarizing and in line with the topic of the referenced (cited) National Review article and the purpose of the 'eternity clauses' as stated in the National Review article. After I added "this" to be more explicit, you then took out the word "democracy" and supplanted it with the word "constitution," ignoring the context of the reference cited. I warned you that what you did would need a different citation, and that you were only presenting your usual political argument that Germany has a "constitution." I put the word "democracy" back in the sentence. But again you supplanted it with the words "Basic Lsw" -- ignoring what I had told you. The National Review article is not about changing a "constitution" or changing the "Basic Law," but about interference with (changing) Germany's "democracy". And now you are again vandalizing this article on the 'eternity clause" to pursue your argument again that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution" -- purposely added material already published in Wikipedia's article on entrenched clauses -- claiming again that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". The 'eternity clause' is not a "colloquial term" used in other countries for an entrenched clause, as you claim. And Wikipedia already has an article for "entrenched clause" which is where the material you have added to the 'eternity clause' article belongs. You are vandalizing the 'eternity clause' article and obviously pushing your political view that Germany has a "constitution". You have been censoring me with false accusations, claiming I am violating Wikipedia's policies, but it is you who have been doing so, not me. Now, I am going to remove the material you have added, because you are using it to vandalize (sabotage) this article. Please take your political opinions elsewhere and stop disrupting this article. Stop pushing your political views and censoring what I am writing and referencing. And now you claim that you have a partner who is also against me. I do not find it to be a coincidence that I was blocked from the German (Deutsch) article on the eternity clause. It was probably you who had me blocked, not wanting Germans to read what I was writing. --Ofthehighest (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

GOALWAY

Excuse me, but please you must help me stop the person who is trying to remove all flag icons from info boxes of all Jordanian football player profiles that I've been creating and editing for the past couple years and I've both worked hard and enjoyed editing all these articles and I'm not going to let someone on Wikipedia to ruin my work, and not just my work, but also accurate info. These flag icons are being removed from info boxes of the players' profiles for a useless reason, more like no good reason at all. The rules for flag icons here on Wikipedia in info boxes don't even make sense. All the blame goes to this GiantSnowman, for not letting me know about this until now, and I've been doing this for the past year and now these people on Wikipedia decide to tell me that it's against the rules to add flag icons to info boxes of player profiles here on Wikipedia. I don't see anything wrong with adding flag icons to player profiles, and why should there be something wrong with that? You tell me! And if this sort of thing has always been illegal on this website then why haven't the flag icons been removed right after they were first put into the articles? This is so unfair, especially for me because working on Wikipedia, creating and editing articles, has been like my life's work. So please, I beg you to either help me stop this GiantSnowman from removing the flag icons and to undo everything you just did on my articles, or to at least not have me suspended or expelled from working on Wikipedia. This really means a lot to me and I've always enjoyed working on Wikipedia, I really love it — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOALWAY (talk • contribs)

Thanks for all your work on the edits. But please have a read of WP:INFOBOXFLAG: this explains why flags should not normally be used in infoboxes. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page > Mathematical Limits

I removed a 6 year old irrelevant piece of the talk page because I am trying to clear my name and several old usernames from google's cache. There is absolutely no point in preserving that specific section. 62.195.187.211 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:Refactoring talk pages for more info on why that would probably not be a good idea. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary on your second attempted deletion reads "removing personal data from google cache and wikipedia". I can't see any personal info: can you please be more specific about why you're blanking other editor's postings to a talk page? Lone boatman (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My username contains parts of my real name. Also, removing a completely outdated part of the talk page adds to it's readability and clarity, so I would say it's a perfectly valid idea. 62.195.187.211 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As noted in WP:Refactoring talk pages, it's a record of a conversation between you and other editors. If the talk page is getting too full then it can be archived, but please don't delete the whole thread again. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave the thread intact, but I am removing my name from this conversation. 62.195.187.211 (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's still refactoring of a talk page. There's no way of knowing whether you're NVK. If you have a privacy issue with what's there, please contact an admin to sort it out. If you'd like help with this, please ask me. I've reverted the change for now. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger with pickles for you!

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomnomnomnom. Thanks! Lone boatman (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Chaka Fattah

Dear Lone Boatman,

I just read a message that informs me that you think some my recent edits to Chaka Fattah are less than neutral. Was there a particular edit that appeared biased? The information that I posted to this page is widely reported and I included links to a number of third party sources e.g. Dept of Education, news sites, and even some established wikipedia pages to validate what I posted. If you have a specific example to point to that would be helpful. As it stands now, the Chaka Fattah page is an inaccurate representation because of the omission of the Congressman's legislative activity on a whole host of issues. Other pages such as Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Eric Cantor all reflect more in-depth profiles of the legislative agenda of each member, which as it stands now that is missing from Chaka Fattah's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly19845 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for contributing. I agree that more detail should be added to the article on Congressman Fattah's legislative record. But to cite some examples of promotional or subjective language, in this edit there were phrases like:

• "Congressman Fattah’s career is best known for his commitment to educational attainment and equity. His record is marked with bills and programs focused on providing quality educational opportunities for families."
• "GEAR UP serves as an international model to aid underserved students in their preparation and pursuit of a college education."
• "This new initiative combines the principal focus of Fattah’s American Dream Accounts Act, H.R 4207 with the success and infrastructure of the GEAR UP program."

In this edit there were phrases like:

• "Annually, the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP), hosts an advocacy event in Washington DC to celebrate the program’s success in the states and to advocate for the program on Capitol Hill."
• "This legislation ensures that schools will have the resources they need to provide all students with a high quality education fulfilling the promise of Brown v. Board of Education: an equal opportunity and investment in every child’s future success."
• "The ESEA Fiscal Fairness Act, H.R. 5071 – amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and a takes giant step toward achieving the promise of Brown v. Board of Education, which ended legal segregation in schools but has left unfulfilled the promise of equal opportunity in all our schools."

...and so on. Some of it appeared to be pasted from a copyrighted source, so please make sure that your future edits are written in your own words, because Wikipedia is legally unable to host copyrighted material. If I can help, please let me know. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerry L-Estrange

Thank you for the welcome and the WP references. In addition to your edits I guess I should have written six children! I am aware that I was developing an edit in real time, a cardinal sin, but was intending to return shortly and make it more biographical in style. Is there a problem with adding a Personal Life section in this particular article as I have more to add? (Keomike (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

Hello Keomike! No sins in evidence here: we trip all over each other during collaborative editing. It's all part of the fun. :-) There's nothing wrong with writing about someone's personal life, but please have a read of WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability. It's best to stick to an objective description of the man, with references from WP:Reliable sources. Do please let me know if I can help with any of this. Cheers, Lone boatman (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eternity Clause

Hello, I reverted the redirect for the moment. I was answering the dispute filed over the page but another volunteer closed it (appropriately) before I finished. I saw problems with the page and thought I'd comment albeit without invitation. Your patience and work is admirable IMHO. I will address the other major participant in hopes of improving Wikipedia overall. Thanks for your time. Jobberone (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Lone boatman (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hey kybernetes :) Hope you're well. Settdigger (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey back. :) "kybernetes"? Hope you're well too. Lone boatman (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Art Smith (chef) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bravo TV

Opel Diplomat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Car boot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of updated information about Focused Ultrasound Foundation

Hello. I am the communications director of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation and recently updated our content, which was subsequently deleted. The info now posted on Wikipedia is outdated and incorrect. For example, we no longer limit our support to MR-guided focused ultrasound. My update deleted all info about the technology since there is a separate wiki page about it. Much more of the info now posted is out of date. How can I get the updated copy reposted? Please let me know. Eclairemckenna (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see from the article's edit history that copyrighted text was removed, some of which was quite WP:Promotional in tone. Wikipedia is unable to host copyrighted content for legal reasons, and also requires that all writing be done from a WP:Neutral point of view. It appears from your username that you have a WP:Conflict of interest which will make it very difficult for you to write objectively about it. I strongly suggest that you wait for someone not connected with the company to update the information. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerry L-Estrange

Thanks again. Hope I haven't driven you mad with the amateur bitty editing if this page was on your Watchlist. Keomike (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well we're all amateurs here mate! And what you've added looks great. Thanks a lot. Lone boatman (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Harold Hyman (Journalist)

Thanks for your help Lone boatman. I was looking for my friend Harold's TV broadcast clips on google and noticed a google listing for him on wikipedia, but when I read it I realized that there was a paragraph about Harold the journalist inserted (not by me) in an article about Harold Hyman the historian. I have never edited a wikipedia article before, but I thought it was important to make sure that since the information was already there, it should be presented properly and it was clear these were two different people, just in the interest of keeping the information on wikipedia accurate. I saw that you made a new page for Harold Hyman (Journalist), and in your message noted the Notability criterion. This information was already on Wikipedia, and I was just trying to present it in proper English, I was not trying to publisize anything. The footnote at the end of the paragraph is a link to his page at BFM TV with video clips of his broadcasts on French television. I would suggest that being on television is notable, but thats not my call. I will email the link to the new page to Harold and get his feedback on accuracy. Thanks, Ernst7474 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernst7474 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your edits, and yes it's clear that you weren't trying to publicize him - everything looks quite WP:Neutral point of view, which is good work especially as you're a friend of his. Lone boatman (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sampson

Dear Sir,

My name is Marios Adamides I am a lawyer, ex-diplomat, writer and have deep knowledge of the history of Cyprus especially the period 15-24 July 1974. 8 days that I researced for 20 years having gathered almost anything in Greek and English that concerns this small period. History is written based on witnesses, documents and other materials. Thus I changed a lot of things on relevant articles that really contained inadequate and false information. Even if you make a reference to a book or article it does not mean that it is valid. In fact even if you read 50 books on the matter you will not a clear picture that is why I wrote my book going from day to day from 15-24 July 1974 about the Cyprus crisis. So if you can find evidence that I write unhistorical things please notify me. Sampson was proenosis, was a controversila figure but he was appointed as President by Colonel Kombokis as a move of necessity because Ioannides candidates were not found or did not accept. Also all the other things I write are based on valid sources which have been verified. If you think you have nore sources from Cypriot, Greek, American,British and Turkish sources please correct me. But if you change what I write maybe I will stop writing and Wilkipedia will be written by biased people with limited knowledge on the issues I spent more than 20 years.

Best Regards,

Marios Adamides — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marios Adamides (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)We don't recommend introducing references you have written yourself - personally, I believe this is a conflict of interest. If you book is reliable enough to be a source, someone else will add it. Mdann52 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Adamides, I must also ask that you stop blanking referenced content in Nikos Sampson, and stop adding unreferenced personal analysis. As noted in Wikipedia:Truth, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not truth. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Question re speedy deletion of Playerthree

Hi Lone boatman, I was in the process of adding a page about Playerthree because it is a company over 10 years old and has produced games for Channel 4 Education, BBC, Miniclip, Sega, Coca-Cola. It is a very similar company to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Robot. Playerthree also produces iOS games, Vita games and has won awards for it's work. I'm sorry if I didn't have time to complete the page fully but Playerthree certainly belongs in the category of UK game developers. If you can let me know why it was tagged for speedy deletion and perhaps what information has to be included before adding the article that would be very helpful. It certainly didn't contain any unbiased advertising. Playerthree is already credited on other Wiki pages about Deepend and one of it's founders, David Streek, is credited on the Innocent Smoothies [[3]] wiki page as the creator of their logo. Kind regards (KidGravy (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC))

Hi, and thanks for contributing. That sounds like a potentially really good article. I suggest that you create it in a user subpage, and add references about all that stuff you mentioned above, and when the article is ready to go live we can move it to the main article space. I'll start it for you now at User:KidGravy/Playerthree. Please let me know if I can help at all with the draft article. Thanks, 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for the help!, I'll follow your advice and request you check it once ive added all the relevant information (KidGravy (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

Focused Ultrasound Foundation profile

Hi - I am following up on my email about the deletion of my updated Focused Ultrasound Foundation profile. I work for the Foundation as Director of Communications and am charged with maintaining the Foundation's Wikipedia profile. Click this link-- http://www.fusfoundation.org/25-staff/12-ellen-mckenna -- to see my photo and info on the Foundation's website. None of the content I added is copywrited, so I'm not understanding your response. Since much of the info now posted on Wikipedia about the Foundation is incorrect or out of date, I really want to get this situation cleared up. Thanks! ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclairemckenna (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do update any info in the article that's out of date, as long as it's from a WP:Neutral point of view and doesn't contain significant amounts of text copied verbatim from the group's website. Please post back here if you have any questions. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Serbia

Dear Lone boatman, Thank you for your interest in my unfinished article on Capital punishment in Serbia. I note with thanks that the formatting has been greatly improved. Please quote the non-neutral and/or non-objective statements in the article so that I can change them. Best wishes,

JankovicIvan (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for contributing. I'm a bit worried about the sources: your extensive re-write heavily references your own work, so there is something of a WP:Conflict of interest there. Please see WP:SELFCITING for more info on this. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lone boatman,

The referenced book is, to the best of my knowledge, the only monograph on the subject in any language. It is based on archival sources and literature. In citing it, I did my best to follow the Wikipedia Conflict of interest guide:

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article."

It was not my intention not to give proper due to the work of others and will gladly cite such work if it comes to my knowledge.

Regards,

JankovicIvan (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Lone boatman (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nikos Sampson

It is very frustrating to read things that are not true but verifiable. If I book states a lie or something completely wrong then it is material for Wikipedia? I think that Wikipedia must go a step forward and become reliable and objective rather than verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marios Adamides (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Please see WP:No original research. You have to cite reliable sources for what you write here. If a cited book is unreliable, then argue its unreliability at the talk page and get WP:Consensus to remove it, and cite a better source. As it is, you're only citing your personal opinions and some vague hand-waving about government records. Lone boatman (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone Boatman,

I cannot beat ignorance and you are ignorant about the Cyprus issues. In have studied almost anything concerning the period 15-24 July 1974 in Cyprus. I will not bother with your encyclopedia any more. If all the subjects are of the same quality as the ones you edit about Cyprus then we have a serious problem. Verifiability has beaten truth and expert knowledge. Remove all I have written The number of dead people as a result of the coup is 91 whether you like it or not. I cannot convince you that the earth is round. You could be a very good propagandist for an authoritarian regime. What is your real name? Gembels?

Marios Adamides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.154.54 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me of anything, mate. You just need to cite sources for what you write on Wikipedia, like every other editor here. Who's Gembels? Lone boatman (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: PetroSkills

Hello Lone Boatman,

I can understand the note that you left with the revert back to the redirect to the PetroSkills Alliance. The main issue I am trying to alter is that the details of the company PetroSkills are listed out on the PetroSkills Alliance page. I was working to create the PetroSkills page and then remove the duplicate information from the PetroSkills Alliance page (as I noted in the update), but unfortunately got involved in other things today that prevented me from updating both close together.

Assuming that I get all the text typed up outside of Wiki (poor internet access right now) and update both pages in a timely fashion, is there a reason that the pages couldn't be separated to correctly include content related to their titles?

Thank you for your help as I am very new to editing in Wikipedia.

Regards,

RJP Tulsa (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do the articles need to be separate? What's the relationship between PetroSkills and the PetroSkills Alliance? From the references cited, they seem to be the same thing, with the same website. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What did u disagree with?

You have said not a word about what you disagree with.--Nmate (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I was posting at your talk page while you were writing this, thanks. Lone boatman (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

why do you think that it is important to include the "References in popular culture" chapter?

why do you think that it is important to include the "Historical descriptions" chapter?

why do you think that it is important to include the "Notable figures" chapter?

The article as being written is rather mazy in which it is not possible to find the important pieces of information, because there are a lot of red herrings there that get people into trouble. And in addition, this article should essentially be about geography of a small village that contains a lot of information which is irrelevent to the English Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think we should not include those things? What information are you have trouble finding? Where is the bad English you referred to in your edit summary? Lone boatman (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, in the notable figres chapter, a lot of people are mentioned of whom there are not articles in Wikipedia , and the writer of this information did not even bother to include red links with these local notalibities. So we need to mention local notalibities of whom articles will never be created in Wikipedia?--Nmate (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are some links to biographies in Reca#Notable figures. Some of the ones that aren't linked aren't notable enough for their own articles, but that doesn't mean they can't be mentioned in another article. Some of the names in there, such as the member of parliament István Pomichal, should be redlinked as they clearly assert notability. Nowhere is WP:Undue weight given to any of the mentions. Please have a read of WP:Content removal. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a small village that lies outside the English speaking world, and hence, the existence of the local notabilities can't convey too much information for those who spend their entire life in an English speaking culture. But it is obvious that we do not agree with each other. So we may request for WP:3o.--Nmate (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your feedback

Can I rewrite the whole page with relevant citations and references, if yes, suggest me the types of citation and references which i can put on the page. Can I put Blog posts as references? Can I bifurcate the information as I did it earlier i.e Early life and background and Advertisements?

Please do provide your comments on above and thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinramdinwar (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Which parts of the page do you think need re-writing? Unfortunately blog posts are not seen as WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia, but mainstream press article are, for example. I notice that there are two places of birth listed for her at the moment: Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh. Both are supported by references. Which is correct? Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)