User talk:Shropshire Lad

deleted out of date talk content Shropshire Lad (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's Reliable Sources, Verification, and no original research policies by adding your self-published book as referencee into articles, as you did at Katherine More, you may be blocked from editing. Adding references to your self published book violates our WP:Reliable Sources guidelines, and could be see as original research unless the material is confirmed elsewhere in proper sources DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above are the necessary formal warnings. More personally, you simply may not use a book you have published as a reference for an article without getting consensus for it on the talk page-- based on the talk p. there, such consensus does not appear to be present. That the book is self-published, and found in no libraries according to WorldCat--neither it nor the self-published novel based on it--makes the situation considerably more serious, and consensus to include it would be extraordinarily unlikely. You must remove those references and material sourced only by them immediately, or it shall be done for you. If you continue after this warning, I shall have to block you, but I hope it will not be necessary.

Additionally, if the material is then supported only by primary sources, this is very likely also to run afoul of Reliable Source policy, unless it is obviously relevant documentation of reliably sourced material. Such sources, even reliable public records, require interpretation, and such interpretation is considered original research. We can only use interpretation if published elsewhere in reliable sources, and your books are not .

If you need to discuss this further, please use the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but I must advise you that it almost certain to confirm what I have just said. ` DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jimbo Wales page

I gave you some incorrect information yesterday. You should do as the administrator advises, if, after reading the guidelines you either do not understand or disagree. In this case I would take the advice of the above administrator.

Please stop changing references

Op cit. is not preferable in wikipedia referencing. Please stop changing my references to this style. I have told you this before. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources sub-section: Citing multiple pages of the same source. Thank you.

Also, please do not take out large amount of edits made with references that DGG has not yet made a definitive opinion on yet. It is fine for you to disagree but some of your editing would seem to be in a more vindictive nature. At Katherine More you did this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_More&diff=475911442&oldid=475791713 a major edit that not only included your referencing but included other references which had not yet been decided on. Please re-read the comments at the talk pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More For instance, as an author of the book on the exact same subject, you knew that a paragraph had an incorrect name, but instead of just inserting the correct name you took the entire paragraph out. That is bad faith editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_More&diff=475993842&oldid=475978616 . If you continue on this way, I will be forced to report you. Mugginsx (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Archived material on Talk:Katherine More

The page was not deleted as you have said on the Katherine More Talk page. Please see this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_More&oldid=573799564 It shows it was archived there at that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More/Archive_1 That archived material is still there though you have removed the indicator as to the page. Archiving is a normal procedure and in accordance with WP:Archive after so much time has passed. You have also restored it to the talk page so now it is in both pages. Meanwhile, please do not revise any of your previous statements. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Forest School Camps for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Forest School Camps is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest School Camps until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More material is being incorporated into Brewster text

A single passenger of the Mayflower, or even a single blood family member, in no way constitutes a category worthy of a separate section unto itself in the biographical article on Brewster. This information regarding the More charges is being integrated into an appropriate place in the text, about all of his relations that accompanied him on the trip. Personal interest in a subject has no bearing in this; it is a purely technical matter, and scholarly matter, assigning this material its proper place. Le Prof [User:Leprof_7272] 73.210.154.39 (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]