Christophertlopez

Welcome!

Hello, Christophertlopez, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:COMPRESS -- Douglas Arthur Teed -- Bullfight.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:COMPRESS -- Douglas Arthur Teed -- Bullfight.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:COMPRESS -- Douglas Arthur Teed -- Bullfight.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:COMPRESS -- Douglas Arthur Teed -- Bullfight.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Art_Hall_--_1906.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Art_Hall_--_1906.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been enjoying

your article on Douglas Arthur Teed but am wondering about some of the language. A sentence such as, "Teed's more conservative, impressionistic depictions of the Middle East were well received, filling the drawing rooms of the city's elite." is not really typical of how wikipedia editors typically write and I am wondering if it should be footnoted or sourced? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm Clarkcj12. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Prancercise, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, the main reason why I undid the your revision is because it didn't look constructive. As well with the YouTube link is not a reliable source for a reference. As such instead of having your work reverted. Request for a WP:RFC on the talk page, to see if other contributors agree. And leave the other contributors a message about the rfc, so they can have some input. And hopefully it can come to a conclusion. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. This weekend I'm working on making the page more substantial, visually appealing, and neutral. Once it's updated, I will follow your suggestions and take it to WP:RFC, and alert previous contributors about it.Christophertlopez (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. You claim that you removed the long-standing links because of 'NPOV'. Just because a link has a negative side doesn't mean it's NPOV. The NPOV page says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The Washington Post link would be acknowledged as representing a significant view. Please stop removing the link and discuss it on the page's talk page first. peterl (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Peter, I appreciate your input. However, stating that "Much of the attention has been negative, mocking the regimen" is a misrepresentation of the facts. How are you quantifying that statement? Because I can bring up many examples of how the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. And highlighting the Bull Smoke with the quote "health nut" is a colloquial, non-constructive addition to the facts. The Washington Post article you refer to is a blog post and represents the personal opinion of that writer, Alexandra Petri. Per Wikipedia standards: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. 'Jane Smith wrote...')." If you really want to keep that blurb, I suggest editing it.

Also, the Richard Simmons quote, which you claim is not in the article I referenced, is most certainly in that article.

Why do you feel keeping the page with a negative slant is constructive to the Wikipedia community as a whole? Christophertlopez (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)