Herbriz
Welcome edit
Hello Herbriz and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm AndrewvdBK, one of the many editors of this great website. I've posted this just to give you some useful advice and help you to settle in. You'll find that Wikipedia is much more than just articles and that there are many areas in which you can help out.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia - it can seem very confusing at times, but you'll find that most people are more than willing to help you if you need it. The longer you spend on Wikipedia, the more you'll learn about how it works. If you do need help, you can contact me by leaving a note on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Alternatively, you can add the code {{helpme}} to your user page and someone will come along to offer you assistance.
One last thing - remember to sign all your posts by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). This automatically inserts your username and the time and date of the post.
AndrewvdBK you talkin' to me? 12:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Nicolaus Wasielewski edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nicolaus Wasielewski requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. CrossTempleJay talk 15:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Nicolaus Wasilewski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No claim to notability, unreferenced
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
June 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Line of succession to the British throne, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. You are clearly aware that there was no consensus to restore the original list yet you went ahead and did it anyway. Please do not do this again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are entirely correct with respect to this page. However the page has been hijacked by people who misuse arguments to reduce the knowledge. I am writing from the view of a person who has never made an edit to add any person (other than reverting) although I have helped with formatting and indeed shortening the article. My total edits have reduced the length of the article).The page has existed for 8 years, and the majority of that time has had more than 1000 names. There was no consensus to decimate this collection of material. Unfortunately the page was frozen in the short version and not the long version given the appearance that the status quo was the short version. Every argument made has been countered - except perhaps one - and that is the length - but the editors have hidden behind others things.
These editors have used words like "guess", "wonder", "interpretation" and speculation - one said: "is purely speculative as the question will never realistically be asked" - another said: "At a guess, once you go beyond Prince Andrew" ...another: "One wonders whether the Kent's prospects" - my pint is that the creation of the article did not involve this - it is a proper collation from reliable sources - the Original Research Rule prohibits these things which those editors suggest. One of these editors also commented that if we go back further the list could =go into the millions. This is most frustrating because it means he did not even read the first few lines of the article, where it indicates the article is finite - and effectively complete just before it was reduced in size. Another person stating that it must remain inaccurate because statistically with births and deaths there needed to be about 4 edits a week. But again they are focussing entirely on the wrong point and missing the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not supposed to engage in original research - edits are only made reliable sources are found that impact the article. If there is no such reliable resource then no change is to be made. The article must be out of date even if there is well known personal knowledge of a birth or death – because all entries are to be made and in fact were made from reliable resources. These editors have tried to attack the resources without success, so they moved onto other arguments. One most interesting attempt was to call the resource a geological site; or criticise it because it did not discount Catholics. But synthesis allows this: Only add a person if a reliable resources states a person was born from another person on the list, and there is a reliable resource that the person was married at the time. No research there (let alone original). Only delete a person if there is a reliable resource about the person’s death – or a reliable resource that says the person became catholic or married a catholic. No research there, just using a resource that says so. There have been spurious arguments relating to how this is to be interpreted – but no interpretation is involved – it has always been the application of a reliable resources, I was also personally attacked, - which in itself is an indication that their arguments were failing. The last straw was to disregard the You are absolutely right; Wikipedia has lost this knowledge because these editors play games rather than have the interests of Wikipedia at heart. Ail my comments on the page assumed good faith. But that it not possible any longer. I tried to suggest arbitration, but that is not available, apparently. The statement that each entry must have an authority for that position either shows ignorance or intentionally is spurious. Any site which states that would need to be constantly kept up to date with births and deaths – and the Wikipedia site would be a mere copy. Lists right throughout Wikipedia insert entries from various sources. In the end, just click “Random article” from the front page to look at the breadth and extent of article, many with no work. Putting together from the sources this (1) the sources; (2) sources births deaths and Catholicism (and nothing else) is precisely what occurred before the decimation of the site. Again, well done by you. Alan Davidson (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Great (short film), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Runaway (2010 film). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)