User talk:Negotiations

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Negotiation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco⁵ 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of your edits

The edit you made asserts several things, and references www.negotiations.com as a source. That website doesn't appear to be a "reliable source" for the claims you wish to add to the article, by the meaning given by the guideline WP:RS. It appears to be a commercial website, not a news source or other source with peer-review. Also, views, especially views that may be challenged, must be attributed to someone, according to the policy WP:V -- we couldn't write "fathers are disadvantaged in every way in the context of child custody," but we could write "Person X states that fathers are disadvantaged..." if a reliable source claims that Person X said this, and the claim is notable to the topic (see WP:N).

The idea behind these policies is that anyone can verify the material, and that even if one disagrees with a view expressed, they cannot reasonably disagree with the statement that someone else has expressed such a view. I may not be expressing myself well, so I'll leave you with words others have written that express this (and other policies, guidelines, and tips for new editors) much better. The first link below is especially important.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb, be careful of using your website as a source for your edits, per Blackworm's comments above. Personally, I don't think its that bad, but if someone else reverted your edits using it as a source, it would be very unlikely that I would jump to your defence. And note, this is in regards to the edits from August 08, so maybe this isn't an immediately relevant problem; it's just that it came to my attn just now. Have a good day. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]