User talk:AlexMoore300



Hello,, 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:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  Introduction
 * 5     The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help
 * Crystal Clear app ktip.svg  Tips
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app kedit.svg|23px]]  Simplified Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.svg|23px]]  Fun stuff...

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I disagree. Part 5 of the Wiki-rules on adverting state: 'External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article.' - since in all three cases you've editted the authors came to prominence through their written work, I think links to these sites are fair.AlexMoore300 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response.
 * The organizations are not the topic of the article, so it doesn't apply.
 * So because they are authors, links to their publishers are appropriate? Since you're quoting WP:EL, take a look at WP:ELNO #1, 4, 5, 13, and 19.
 * To me, it looks like promotion of the publishers and the individual books that you are adding images of. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:COI in case it might apply.
 * So where are we at in these discussions? Are you still disputing the external links, or only the images at this point?
 * Given that the editing is across articles and I'm unclear on what you're disputing still, I'm not sure what our next step should be. WP:DR covers the many possibilities. I'm thinking WP:NPOVN might be a good next step to get others' perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!
Thank you!AlexMoore300 (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Also thanks for the fly!AlexMoore300 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Iain King page
Please don't misrepresent statements from publishers' blurbs of Iain King's books as statements made by the National Library of Australia, the Royal Institue of Philosophy, The Daily Telegraph etc. Such dishonesty in sourcing can only possible reflect badly on King, rather than promote him as you are obviously trying to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC) That's not true - look at the economist review (they're independent, surely?), or the quote from the Royal Institute of Philosophy cited on the publisher's webpage (which they came up with themselves, surely?), or the quote from the Observer (again, cited by the publisher); the 'Publishers Weekly' review is definitely independent, and I'm sure a large publisher like Bloombury wouldn't say things like the Kofi Annan quote without a basis for it. The Daily Telegraph review, I accept, is 'from the publisher'; the 'National Library of Australia' description seems to be their own. If you think some of the quotes are based on publisher's promotional stuff, then either put that in the reference/footnote, or qualify the comment appropriately in the text. But your deletion has just taken out lots of references, most of which are perfectly valid, even by your unfairly strict criteria. AlexAlexMoore300 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Iain King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Enlightenment, Observer, Free Library, Newton, Gary Cox and London Review

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mario Kopić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herman Cappelen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intuition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks - I've tried to fix it.AlexMoore300 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)