User talk:Tedhead
Hi, Tedhead. I see you're new to Wikipedia. I just wanted to make sure you're aware that the criterion for including material on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and that you should add citations to reliable sources along with material you add. Could you please go back and add references for the material you added? Also, just to check, you don't have any conflict of interest in editing this article, do you? Thanks, William Pietri 13:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi: Most of the detail I added is from a careful reading of the sources (NY Times) articles already cited, being more specific in the comments backed up by the articles cited. The comment about the exterior of the club being refurbished is from my own observation walking by the place over the past months: scaffolding, bricklayers, hard-hats. Sure looks like work being done to me. As for conflict of interest, none that I'm aware of. HOW ABOUT YOU? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedhead (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Hello again. I've copied your comment here to make the flow of conversation clearer. No, no conflict of interest for me; I've never seen the place and know nobody involved. Unfortunately, including material based on your own research is known here as original research and is not allowed. As I said above, you have to cite reliable sources, so unfortunately that material will have to come out. Regarding your other changes, I'd be grateful if you could point me at the specific sources for those, too. In particular I'm wondering about the changes at lines 13, 31, and 37 on this page. The other ones seem fine, though. Thanks, William Pietri 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply. Thanks for the more detailed explanation; that makes things much clearer, and I think you've made a big improvement to the article. Sorry if I seemed a little suspicious at first; not long before you edited that, somebody removed all the negative information, and I was a little paranoid. As to your question about taking a photo of the place to prove the renovations, I'm not sure. I know I've seen discussion somewhere of that exact point, but can't remember how it turned out, and couldn't find it despite a few attempts. I'd suggest you post the question on Wikipedia Talk:Attribution and see what people come up with there. Best, William Pietri 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes in Alice Roosevelt article
[edit]Nice edits on the ALR article, but you seemed to have removed the footnotes section was set up in this article. Removing it because you don't seem to know how to work with them is not advisable as there is a specific way that this is done in Wikipedia and it is fairly tedious. Reintroducing the footnotes section amounts a lot of serious rework. I'm adding a sample footnotes section to this discussion at the bottom. The following is a sample reference: [1] and that is automatically added to the footnotes section at the bottom of this discussion. I hope this helps. SimonATL 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Notes and references
[edit]References
[edit]PLEASE do NOT remove wikipedia footnoting
[edit]Ted - this is the standard way that it is done at Wikipedia. Putting in external links is not footnoting. Thanks. SimonATL 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What's your beef with the TRA
[edit]Tedhead - Removing links all over wikipedia to the TRA, slamming it left and right - What's your beef with it? If it could be better, why not make it better yourself? Maybe it would be a better organization if, historians such as yourself worked on the inside as opposed to carping at it from the outside? I know you gave up on the TRA, but I haven't given up on your ability to help make the TRA all that it could be. SimonATL 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your unsigned comments on SIMONATL about the TRA
[edit]Tedhead - Actually I look forward to the Boston 2007 Annual TRA meeting. I attended the 2006 Annual Meeting and it didn't look like much of a financial disaster as there were hundreds in attendance. As for Michelle Bryan't work. I know the lady fairly well and she has some truely innovative ideas and is laying the needed groundwork to help move the organization into the 21st Century. I'd be calling for its demise except for one thing. Although the historians know something about TR, the average American knows nothing at all and until the TRA actually moves closer on its oft stated goal of helping more people (especially Americans) learn about the 26th President, I'll try to help as much as I can. Another good thing, more and more people who actually want to work on improving the organization seem to be appearing. I think the next months will separate the doers from the talkers. SimonATL 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)