User talk:ukexpat
|
Welcome to ukexpat's talkpage |
· userpage · |
Monday 11
November |
| This is Ukexpat's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – #154 |
Speedy deletion
I do not understand your thinking. If you look on Amazon, B&N, other book sites around the world, you will see my novels. You can also Google my name and see the lectures and signings I perform. I will abide by the rules, but I would like them clarified a little more. Thank you.
Jacob Aaron Westervelt
Please feel free to edit the Jacob Aaron Westervelt. Im actually not a native english speaker... Im Swiss. So my english is not perfect at all... and I know it ;). The article was in my Sandbox for a couple of days, and several people (admins) were looking at it, but it seems you see more... Thanks for your help. --Rectilinium'♥' 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I dont know if you actually planned to copyedit the rest of my article too, because I would be glad if you could do so, before someone adds a copyedit tag. I prefer, if one good editor works on my article first, before dozens of people start to make minor edits that are not really improving the article. You would really do me a favour! Another user suggested that I shall nominate the article for WP:DYK (within 5 days), but I would like to wait until the article is edited. With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 09:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi... I just want to ask, if you are still interested to edit the rest of my article... with kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 20:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks --Rectilinium'♥' 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Rehoboth Carpenter family
"I have reverted your recent changes to Rehoboth Carpenter family. Sticking chunks of text in square brackets in the article is not the way to resolve content disputes. Please discuss on the article's talk page in an attempt to reach consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)"
Apparently you haven't reviewed Rehoboth Carpenter family's history over the last few weeks or read its discussion page (please do read at least the "Clarification" section). Consensus is not in the cards. I and others have attempted to engage Iwanafish in discussion of his wholesale deletion of my edits and reversion to his own, which are laced with errors and baseless claims. He has refused to communicate on Wikipedia or to reply to several e-mails that another Carpenter researcher and I have sent him over the course of several months (beginning well before my first edit of the article). Yet he continues to restore his version (from which he has removed all traces of my contributions)--not because it is accurate (which, emphatically, it is not) but because it is his. While I recognize that my bracketed insertions were unorthodox, I used them only after repeated attempts of a more conventional sort (see "history" and "discussion" pages). I don't have much experience writing for Wikipedia, but there appears to be no effective means of restraining the likes of Iwanafish. Other "passersby" such as yourself have called for the same approach that you do: talk it out on the discussion page and try to reach consensus. Iwanafish, however, is (to be kind) not of a collegial disposition. What, please, is the remedy when someone persists in cavalierly promulgating mistake-ridden information and resists all attempts to enlist him in dialogue? I'm beginning to think that, when push comes to shove, Wikipedia is incapable of policing itself. I would rather the article be removed altogether than see it survive in its present form, as a rich source of misinformation. GeneZub (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
LET ME BE RIGHT
GOT TO GET IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.236.166 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Greubel Forsey - This article is written like an advertisement tag
I have rewritten and cleaned up the Greubel Forsey article to read in a more neutral tone. Would you please review and if you are happy with my edits remove the 'This article is written like an advertisement tag' you added, or if you feel that it still nneeds work let me know where. Thank you.IanS (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Subpages
In my talk page, you said you can help me create a subpage for the company to help avoid speedy deletion and to get the content right so it can eventually gain approval. How do we get started? —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC).
thank you very much do you know about a movie about alzheimers? (its a love story) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlisle10 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Woodruff photo
Dear UKexpat Thanks for your note. If I did get a ticket number, it did not survive a computer crash last year. What do I do now? Regards--Woodruff (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Your little note.
You added a little note to the other chaps message saying I had left a misleading edit statement, or some such.
When I edited the JFK assassination page, the version I had on screen said "John F My Life Kennedy" - so I edited it to remove the rude expression. It appears that someone also edited at the same time, however, I resent my edit being marked as vandalism (I have addressed this separately) and really, if you had looked at the page before you would have seen that my edit and the other were within a short space of time. It wouldn't have taken a great leap to see that I was a new user that had set up an account especially for the purpose of editing out the rude comment on that page. I think your snippy little note was uncalled for. I had clearly stated I was editing out rude words, and if you go back and look you will see how the page had looked.
So for any new people who try to help, we get branded vandals and have additional notes saying we are lying. This is not how I'd expect people to treat new comers. You may dislike people who interfere with "your" wikipedia, but this is for everyone and ordinary folk trying to assist do not deserve to be treated like that. I am offended. I doubt you care, but I wish to clear my name even if it's only for my own satisfaction. SueGD (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
ITN for World Digital Library
|
On 21 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article World Digital Library, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Blackbird (journal) question
Hi Ukexpat,
My apologies for forgetting about the edit summary portion of the page. I'll be sure to do that in the future. I had a question regarding your recent comment on the Blackbird discussion page - "Self-references are not reliable sources in support of notability."
Since Blackbird is an online journal and I was using the actual internet publication pages for each author to back up that they were indeed published in the journal, I understand that that counts as a "self-reference." However, does that mean instead of me using the actual journal publication pages, I have to find a third-party source that lists that these authors were indeed published in Blackbird and use that as the reference instead? Some of the authors aren't widely published so finding a third-party source that lists their publication history has been challenging. Thank you for your help.
Ctcahill (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)ctcahill
Blackbird follow-up
Hi Ukexpat,
As far as the content that describes Blackbird's notability, I think I've replaced all of the self-references with third-party sources. If I have, is it ok to remove the "self-published sources" tag? Also, in reference to the other tag, I think I've almost (...I'm not sure) done enough inline citations to support verification so can that tag be removed also or do I need to do more inline citations? If so, what is it exactly that I haven't provided an inline citation for that needs it (I know I haven't provided inline citations for every author, but I was going to continue to work on that)? My apologies for all of the questions. Thank you.
Ctcahill (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Ctcahill
Survey format
What is the proper format for a survey request on an article's main page? As you know, the Rehoboth Carpenter Family has had a edit war. I provided a compromise article and placed it with the competing versions on the discussion page. Any help, voting, etc would be appreciated.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Style review request
Cheers You have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer for British English syntax, spelling, etc. I would like you to take a look at Bibliography of George Orwell, as I am planning on finishing it off within the next week and nominating it for (eventually) a featured list. If you want to leave suggestions and corrections there or on my talk, I would appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note I am in the process of converting {{Sortname}}s to {{Sort}}s; please ignore this stupid mistake of mine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
inappropriate links
I would like to understand how the link that i posted is inappropriate - the linked page provides updated daily news on India fashion week. I would appreciate it if you allow the posted link
http://www.fashionistas.me/group/willsindiafashionweek
Thank you
Sanjiv Fashion2 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The link posted provides neutral information in regards for the topic page and falls withing the guidelines of the Wikipedia external links policy
What should be linked Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion2 (talk • contribs)
The links i have posted fall within the guidelines of the wikipedia link policy - it is not spam. It is updated news on the topic page
I would appreciate an explanation as to why it does not fall within the policy
Thank you
Sanjiv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion2 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
My intention is not to spam but to provide relevant information to viewer of various topics covered on Wikipedia.
In regards to fashionistas the key issue is Wikipedia is referencing a pornography show that has little to do with fashionistas.
The generally accepted description of fashionistas is individuals who are part of the fashion community and followers of fashion.
Wikipedia is allow a pornography show to hijack fashionistas and providing incorrect information for the community at large. This is simply common sense - it seems the moderators of Wikipedia make it very difficult to correct misleading information on the Wikipedia site and not allow links fall within the guidelines and provide neutral information to users.
Fashion2 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Fashion2 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Sanjiv Fashion2 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)