User talk:XX7

; Archives
	Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, XX7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Isotope23 17:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived your talk page.--Isotope23 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --XX7 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked your account, as removing warnings is not strictly forbidden to the point where we block people for it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Please inform ShadowHalo of his mistake. --XX7 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has already been informed. I recommend that you make good use of those warnings, they are not to chastise you but to teach you how not to be blocked. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I wanted to let you know that part of the reason for the block was that you broke the three-revert rule, though I'm not sure you were aware of its existence. In the future, make sure not to revert edits on a page more than three times in a 24-hour period. ShadowHalo 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made no mention at all of any 3RR. So it clearly wasn't the reason for blocking me, which you very clearly stated was for removing material from the userpage. Your actions have now been proven to wrong. --XX7 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The original problem was that this page was part of an edit war and that the warning was removed/added six times in one day. Users generally aren't blocked when they show that they recognize that the situation has become an edit war and take some sort of step to de-escalate it, but this was not the case here. You are right that I did not tell you about WP:3RR, which I should have done. I sometimes forget that everyone can't be expected to know every policy, and I apologize for not making sure that you knew about 3RR. Just make sure to keep this in mind when reverting in the future, alright? =) ShadowHalo 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious from what you had written that your attitude was clearly one of do what I tell you or else. Fortunately, the other Administrators that considered this had a far better sense of reason and proportion. It was agreed that your actions were unjustified. You are now attempting detract from your misconduct by still trying to find fault despite never at any time having given this as a reason for your actions. I've just read that the 3RR is not enforceable on this page anyway. Hopefully you will learn from your mistake, and in future treat people with a greater sense of consideration. --XX7 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in no way trying to detract from my misconduct; as I stated, the reason that I got involved was because you had removed it six times in one day. Actually, you're right that 3RR isn't enforceable on talk pages. I had assumed that the word userspace was not being used to include the user talk namespace since the other talk namespaces; however, you're absolutely correct that it does not apply to the user talk namespace. You have my complete apologies for that. Regarding "my attitude", there was not meant to be any attitude whatsoever. The comments I left came from modified versions of the {{test}} warnings with no editorializing by me. If you feel that the comments were uncivil, you may with to say something at Template talk:Test or a similar page. ShadowHalo 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Not blocked directly. Autoblock lifted. Request handled by: Yamla 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --XX7 21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Vasco da Gama, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

99% of that article is not referenced. Why have you not put a notice on the other six sections ? --XX7 00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael has no references. Why are there no notices on that article ? In fact, virtually every single article is not fully referenced. Most of them are barely referenced. So why aren't far more notices being added to these articles ? --XX7 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tag unsourced material as I spot it, usually when it is first added, but there are more than 1.5 million articles in Wikipedia. Note that I often simply delete newly added material, but what you added looks plausible, and is worth keeping if it can be attributed to reliable sources. Please look at our policy on attribution, which states, "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Another statement is, "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Donald Albury 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the first question I asked. 99% of the Vasco da Gama article is not referenced. Why have you not put a notice on the other six sections ? You have obviously spotted the article because you have added a notice to one of the sections. You have also written that "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So as Raphael has no sources at all will you be deleting it ? --XX7 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people simply tag new additions as they are added. It's time-consuming and difficult to go through an article's history and figure out who added what unsourced information. Regarding the Raphael article, feel free to tag it with {{unreferenced}}, and if the information sits there for a long period of time, the unreferenced information should get removed. The article won't be deleted since we know that there are reliable sources, but there aren't any being used in the article. ShadowHalo 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should at least be consistency when somebody is so readily aware of it. On Vasco da Gama none of it adequately referenced, yet only one out of seven sections has a notice on it. Why isn't the one notice removed or six more added ? I won't tag Raphael because if I did, I should tag just about every single article I read. --XX7 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, several of the sections do have references, though the entire section may not be thorougly referenced. How about this? Remove the tag from the section, and add {{not verified}} to the article to indicate that not all of the information has been verified, although there are some references there. ShadowHalo 03:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done that. I previously didn't know how to do it or that non-Administrators could add notices. That is much more consistent with the sparsity of references throughout the article. It may now bring attention to editors to add general references for the whole article rather than just one section. --XX7 13:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jan Akkerman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jan Akkerman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]