Jump to content

User talk:Murus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

June 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Global Holdings Announces Plans to Develop World’s Largest Tech Testing and Evaluation Center.]]</ref>New technologies such as driverless cars, renewable energy feeds, state-of-the-art

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check. --Murus (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • symptoms and pain in the chest, while viral infections are self-limited. Help of a pulmonologist (respiratory physician in the U.K. and Australia} may be enlisted to determine the underlying course of a pleurisy and chart post-illness

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to. --Murus (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rust Belt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed.--Murus (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding references can be easy

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

I noticed that you added some references that could be improved with additional information. Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
  2. Then click on "Templates".
  3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
  4. Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
  5. Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
  6. Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.
  • Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header   ==References==   is near the end of the article.
  • And check that   {{Reflist}}    is directly underneath that header.
7.  Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
If you already know all this & I've misinterpreted something in your editing, please don't take offense, just trying to help a fellow editor. Thanks --Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Murus (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion - Taksim Gezi Park

Dear Markus2685, I have noticed that you have made changes to the Taksim Gezi Park article, that is wonderful! However, you did not provided related and reliable source to your claims which is not good. Please be informed that I have rolled back your edits. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See you around, --Murus (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Murus… The information you have deleted was contrary to your claims indeed supported by sources. Therefore your argument you did not provided related and reliable source is absolutely not understandable. The information was supported with four reliable sources. I have now even added a fifth source, namely The New York Times. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG. And the main article about the Pangaltı Armenian Cemetery, where the Taksim Gezi Park article links to, is supported by 11 sources. That's why your argument for deleting the information is not correct. I would therefore very kindly ask you to not delete it again. Thank you. --Markus2685 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Markus2685! Thank you for your quick reply and for providing a more reliable source: The New York Times from June 7, 2013[1]:

Gravestones from an Armenian cemetery at Taksim demolished in 1939 were used to construct stairs at Gezi Park, a republican-era project by the French planner Henri Prost that is like the jumble of high-rise hotels, traffic circles and the now-shuttered opera house on the square, named after Ataturk.

— —Michael Kimmelman, NYT

However, since this is a serious claim that can be even interpreted as a slander, would you be so kind as to research it more. We know for sure that the press acts as an echo chamber, so some history books may be of great help. By the way, what area do you refer to when you talk about "on the areal"? [2]

I am asking since near everything in Pera can be included under this category. Meanwhile, I will put the thing back into a limbo while you will continue your worthwhile research. Believe me, I have no political interest in this matter whatsoever, and am driven by the intent to keep this wonderful resource free of bigotry and bias! If you don't agree with me which is fine, you can submit for an arbitration, it is always nice to have a third pair of eyes involved. Best, --Murus (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, so just to make this clear. What exactly is bothering you? The word "demolished" or what is it? Because the fact that an Armenian Cemetery existed on the area of today's Gezi Park is undeniable and this information is supported by numerous reliable source. And also the fact that the cemetery is not existing anymore is something undeniable. So what exactly is bothering you that you still want more sources (although concerning to Wikipedia rules there are already more than enough reliable sources given). And sorry to say this, but your way of argumenting, makes the impression as you obviously have a political interest because saying that more sources are needed (although more than 6 reliable sources are enough) is not understandable and also saying that mentioning this fact could be "interpreted as a slander" reminds of people (mostly Turks) who find that saying there was indeed an Armenian Genocide is a "slender". This has nothing to do with slender or anything else. If the Armenian Cemetery was demolished and if this information can be supported by reliable sources (which it can) than this is a historical fact which belongs to this Wikipedia article. If someone, because of personal reasons, thinks it is as "slender" mentioning this fact, like many Turks think it is a "slender" saying that there was an Armenian Genocide, this is their personal problem and not a Wikipedia problem. --Markus2685 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Markus2685! I indeed does not have any political interest in this matter, so rest assured! If you check the article's history, you will notice that at first I have written myself that the barracks and the park were situated on the grounds of a cemetery. When I conducted more research, I did change the wording to "near" since I did not find convincing evidence to that, and decided to go by the "do-no-harm" golden rule. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia cannot change the world, but merely is trying to inform it. I am also aware of the fact that the new Turkish generation that is engaged in protests now is sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century. However, I think one should be cautious while arguing a case, and should be also careful about where to do so. But as I mentioned before, if you believe that I am wrong, go ahead with that arbitration thing, everything should be decided in a collegiate manner. Sincerely yours, --Murus (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added an opening sentence to the history section and made a few stylistic edits. I am glad that we are having a worthwhile, cooperative discussion here. The sentence: "After the Armenian Genocide the cemetery was demolished in 1930 and its marble tombstones were sold in 1939 or were used in the construction of the Park" has too many citations, so I am asking to kindly reduce them to one or two, most authoritative. Best,--Murus (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC).

Impact factor article section deletion

Dear Randykitty,

You have deleted without discussion a section in the Impact factor article by merely stating:

I agree that this is a spoof, but you cannot write that without a reliable source; remove incorrect info about Master List (updated continually))

— Randykitty

instead of dropping the mentioning of an ISI-clone and changing "annual" to "continuously" in the case of the Thompson Reuters Master Journal List. Indeed, the evaluation of journals by Thompson Reuters is done continuously, and the results are made available through the Web of Science database immediately.[1]

However, in case of the journal impact factor ratings, journals are added to the list annually, when a new JSR is released.[2]. See, for example, the 2013 list that you chose to delete: [3] That means that a certain journal can be found in a Master Journal List database,[4] which is free to use, however that does not mean that its impact factor has been calculated. You should be aware of the fact that a lot of second-tier journals claim having an impact factor of unknown provenance. Not all of developing countries' scholars have access to the JSR. I've seen stuff on the internet when Thompsons' actual ratings were distorted. Therefore, checking into the Master Journal List can be the only option to decide on a reputation of a certain journal before submitting. That is why I feel strongly about emphasizing both the impact factor spoofing and the availability of a Master List.

Another thing, the current pull towards eliminating journal impact factor ratings may result in chaos. That is why I shared the information about Thomsons self-policing and supressing journals suspected in citation inflation.[5][6][7]

In short, there is a lot of confusion with bibliometrics both in real life and on wikipages nowdays.

I have no doubt that all your eliminations are of good-faith nature, and not a result of playing the get-as-many-edit-counts-as-you-can game, but nevertheless, it is always nice to have a third pair of knowledgeable eyes to get involved. I know that as a novice editor and reviewer (7 months and 16 days after registration) you will be also highly appreciative of such an opportunity. So, how do we proceed further? Best, --Murus (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Wow. As a newbie, I'm quite honored that an editor like you with months of experience and hundreds of edits behind its belt is willing to provide me with some guidance! And I'm impressed by the good faith that you are displaying in not suspecting me of playing an edit-count game. So I humbly present you here my (probably clueless) replies to the issues you raise:
    • The TR Master Journal List is, as far as I know, updated whenever one of the TR databases decides to include a new journal. The JCR does this three times a year, other databases perhaps at other times. So saying that it is updated "annually" is incorrect, I think. The JCR itself is published once a year of course, but that is a different matter altogether.
    • I was under the impression that WP is not a self-help guide. It is not our function to warn people. All we do is report information that can be sourced to independent reliable sources. You give no source at all about the "spoof" site. Yes, I agree, it looks very much like a spoof site, but what you and I think is absolutely not important. As long as there is no reliable source about this spoof site, it has no place in the article.
    • Finally, (you included this in a separate section, so I hope you'll forgive me for replying in this section) there's the issue of including year-by-year statistics about how many journals are covered/got added this year/etc. These are pretty useless statistics, in my opinion. If they are in the article for 2013, then why not for the other years, too? That would make for a pretty boring and rather useless article, I think.
Hope this clarifies my thinking behind the edits I made. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Randykitty, thank you for your input. Before getting into particulars I would like to ask you if you are a paid worker for the Wikimedia Foundation. A simple yes or no would suffice. Thank you in advance for your coming reply! I would also appreciate if you kindly drop me a note on my page, looks like we are both extremely busy persons. With best wishes, --Murus (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
That's a strange question and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. In any case, as a matter of principle, I don't give out any personal information, sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eugene Bullard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • from the government of France.<ref name="ANB" /> He became a knight of the [[Legion of Honor]] ([[:fr:Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur|Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur]]}, which is France's most coveted award. He was also awarded the [[Médaille militaire]], another

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sharks, I'll get there, thanx!--Murus (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Taksim

Murus what I can say is this...The Taksim Barracks were actually built on top of the Armenian cemetery (here's a source that says so). The source also says that the Taksim Barracks were built on top of the Muslim cemetery. I find this hard to believe (See this photograph). It is clear that the Taksim Barracks cannot possibly be on the lands of the Muslim cemetery given is disproportionate location to the barracks. However, the Armenian cemetery (Harbiye Tarafi (Ermeni)) is more understandable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Proudbolsahye, thank you for your message. I am really impressed with all new sources that are presented since I previously did my own, though limited in scope, research of the topic! I guess, we have all to review them, compare, and after that develop a conclusion which will be historically accurate. I am relying on you in this matter since I cannot read Turkish or Armenian, which is very unfortunate. Best, --Murus (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC).

messages

Hello, Murus. You have new messages at Malke 2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coccidioides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saprophytes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, mea culpa!--Murus (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Non-free content can be used in articles only if:

  1. Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria;
  2. It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created); and
  3. It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law.

The article already has several non-free images. You can't add non-free images to articles just to "score." Trivialist (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Houghton Mifflin Company, 1920, Volume II, p. 324.</ref> joined 269 American aviators at the [[Lafayette Flying Corps]<ref>Gordon, Dennis. The Lafayette Flying Corps: The American Volunteers in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed!--Murus (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Drew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Fisk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed!--Murus (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Lai Massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frontline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Done! --Murus (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

September 2013

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad you caught it! Fixed. --Murus (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to My Lai Massacre may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • platoon killed at least 60–70 Vietnamese, as they swept through the northern half of Mỹ Lai (4} and through Binh Tay, a small sub-hamlet about {{convert|400|m}} north of Mỹ Lai (4).<ref name=
  • p.139. Cited in Oliver, Kendrick. (2006) ''The My Lai Massacre in American History and Memory'', (Manchester: Manchester University Press, p.112.</ref> [[United States Secretary of the Army|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done.--Murus (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugh Thompson, Jr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks!--Murus (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Lai Massacre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Look (magazine) and Hugh Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed!

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Nick Turse

Hi Murus. The discussion at the Nick Turse article about whether to include his opinions on the Columbine Massacre -- a subject you weighed in on last spring, saying it should be included -- is again under discussion. Care to weigh in again? 76.14.66.186 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi 76.14.66.186. Thank you for your note! I remember Nick Turse's article and will stop by. Regards, --Murus (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

December 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ref>[http://www.gimell.com/musicstore-about-us.aspx Gimell Records]. ''Official website'' Accessed ( December 2013/.</ref> The singers have paved the way for many younger groups such as [[The Sixteen]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Done! It is always a pleasure to deal with you! --Murus (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

February 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The Achaemenians| place = Leiden | publisher =Brill | year = 1982|isbn= 90-04-06506-7}} p. 8.}} (See also the following excerpt: "the question of the identification of Avestan Raya with the Raga
  • Neoplatonic]] conception of causality rather than an intellectual approach or a mechanical one).{{Citation needed|date=October 2012}} Razi's alchemy brings forward such empiric qualities as

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Dispute at My Lai Massacre

I'm going to try one more time to reason with you and assume good faith, despite evidence to the contrary.

I will restate my reason for deleting the sentence that you added at the end of the section, and I would like you to respond to it:

  • Summarizing the "Aftermath" section with the total number of civilian casualties in the Vietnam War makes it seem as though all civilian casualties were the result of American War crimes. This is not the case. You said, "it helps to understand why it happened and puts things into perspective." But because you are including civilian casualties caused by communist forces, as well as American allies, no, it does not put things into perspective. It is actually misleading. Explain to me why this number which includes war crimes committed by other nations is necessary to "put into perspective" a single war crime by the United States.

I will also try to correct certain misconceptions you seem to have.

  • You seem to think that in a content dispute that Wikipedia defaults to including disputed material. This is not the case. Unless I am mistaken, there is no policy which states this in one direction or the other. If you know of such a policy, please link me to it.
  • You seem to be hoping to find editors to help you revert rather than trying to convince me of the material's worthiness. This is not the appropriate way to handle WP:dispute resolution. We rely on consensus building on Wikipedia. Material that has 51% of editors supporting its inclusion is not acceptable. Casually dismissing my concerns with a single sentence is not sufficient justification for either the material or your reversions. Wikipedia is not a vote. This is typical of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which we would consider WP:Disruptive editing. So you are obligated to try and convince me that the material is appropriate. When I see you immediately jumping to WP:RFCs and second opinions, it appears as though you consider dialog unnecessary as long as you can round up enough editors supporting your view.
  • You seem to think it's appropriate to call my edits "vandalism" when I've raised very legitimate arguments against the material you are restoring. This appears to me like an attempt to intimidate me into concessions. However, I am well aware of what is and what is not vandalism. I have been editing for over 5 years now. I've seen just about every subtle tactic deployed to circumvent our policies on neutrality, consensus building, and verification. This does not impress me.

In addition, you asked for a second opinion here, and you got one here, stating that the material is inappropriate. Yet you continue to revert, saying a discussion in which you are not involved, is occurring on the talk page. Two editors have called the material WP:SYNTH. There is a consensus. What will it take to convince you the material is bad?

I would like to try and de-escalate things with you by pointing out that I read the article nearly top to bottom. I did not go through and revert every change you made to the article. Almost all of your edits were useful. It is just this one passage you added that I and others have a problem with. Rather than focusing solely on this one sentence, remember that I approved of every other change you made. I am not disapproving of your proficiency at editing in the slightest. I am merely pointing out that, while the material may have been interesting for you, it is not encyclopedic due to our many policies on WP:WEIGHT, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and WP:NEUTRALITY.

In the interest of compromise, I have tagged the disputed material and section to warn our readers to view it with appropriate skepticism. I will wait 24 hours for you to begin dialog with me and actually attempt to justify the material. If I have no received a response by that time, I will delete it again. If you revert after that point, I will seek administrative action. Consider this your formal warning for disruptive editing. Hopefully we can resolve this amicably without escalating any further. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been better than my word and waited 3 days for a response, since your edit history shows about that much time between edits. I will continue to assume good faith and that you have acknowledged through WP:SILENCE the inappropriateness of the material. I am hoping that it is not the case that your only motivation to comment is to explain a reversion. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Murus/Archive_1&oldid=1190144002"