User talk:AmeliaElizabeth

Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alfred_Legrand

Speedy deletion of Pinsky Phenomenon
A tag has been placed on Pinsky Phenomenon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Normally, particularly with a complex topic like this one, one creates the article first, either offline or in a sandbox, then posts it when it is ready. Otherwise, confused editors are likely to call for the deletion of an incomprehensible stub. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Orangemike is correct. More important to saving this article, though, is some indication of how or why this phenomenon is notable by Wikipedia standards. Simply saying "The result is cited widely; refer to Google Scholar" is very insufficient. Basically, we need you to provide something specific to verify that you're not making this up, and that the concept is somehow important. Specific citations are required, much like in an academic work. Remember also that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, so you will need to somehow explain the concept in a way that "normal folks" can reasonably understand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome To Wikipedia!
Welcome!

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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Acalamari 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. SmashvilleBONK! 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice
You may want to look through some pages and read policies before you keep adding content...you obviously have good intentions, but many of your edits don't adhere to Wikipedia standards. --SmashvilleBONK! 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, will do, will try to learn. could you teach me? AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As a (rambling) example, your changes to the X-Files concerning the ancestry of Duchovny; the article is about the X-Files, not about an actor who happens to have been in the X-Files. Rephrased differently, imagine an object. That object has attributes. It's possible that an attribute itself is an object (which of course has attributes). The attributes of the attributes should not be included in an article. It might help if you picture this as a weird family tree, imagining attributes as children. Using this analogy, a wikipedia article should never contain grandchildren.
 * For a concrete example: A human arm. The arm is covered with skin. The arm has a number of bones inside. Those are attributes of the human arm. However, skin has attributes too - the skin is made up of a certain type of cells. It is gas permeable. Etc etc. The attributes of the skin don't really have any place in an article about the arm. Using the family tree metaphor with the arm example, skin and bones would be children of the arm; gas permeable and certain types of cells would be grandchildren of the arm - and so should not be in the article about the arm.
 * Hope something useful comes from that... Quaeler (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You really need to listen to this advice. The unreferenced edits you are making to articles are not adhering to neutral points of view and are going off on some pretty far off tangents. --SmashvilleBONK! 06:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Golom
Hi. This is just to let you know that I changed your article Golom into a redirect to Golem as they are the same subject and the Golem article is much more complete. You might want to check that Golem covers all the information you had in Golom. If anything is missing then you can add it there. It is always a good idea to check that there is no existing article on the same subject before you start a new one. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ok AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

2 (number)
Please stop adding the definition of number 2...it's very hard to understand and unnecessary, but more importantly, you should not add information into the infobox. --SmashvilleBONK! 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

4325243524
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 4325243524, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of 4325243524. Dethme0w (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you persist in creating articles, or editing other articles, that are againt Wikipedia policy. We don't make articles about numbers, no matter how "interesting" you think they might be. When other editors tell you these things, you just ignore them. Well, if you keep doing it, you'll be blocked from editing, perhaps permanently. It's as simple as that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of name-calling, it'a a matter of fact — you are being disruptive. You are writing articles about numbers becaue you think they are interesting, not because they have some sort of notability attached to them. You make edit to existing articles that have little or nothing to do with the article's subject. You are being disruptive, and you are doing so in a manner that is (or should be) obvious. You've been given links to articles about what editors of Wikipedia should do, but you either haven't read them, or you have and you've ignored them. There's nothing to teach here. It's just common sense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic edits
To repeat a warning provided to you a couple of days ago, please do not add information to articles that is off-topic for those articles. Information contained within an article should be substantially related to the article's topic. Examples where your edits have gone off-topic include San Diego, California and SEI Corporation. Please re-read the comments provided above by Quaeler for more information on how to determine whether a piece of information is sufficiently on-topic to be included in an article or not. Thanks. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 09:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Pairadox (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you are not nice? It is nice to be nice. It is not nice to be mean. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Informing you of Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest is not being mean. Your continued accusations of meanness against anybody who attempts to guide your edits, on the other hand, is less than productive. Try modifying your edits to conform to policy instead. Pairadox (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, I need lessons. I try to follow wikipedia rules, but some people take umbrage. Teach me, I will learn. Just be kind and nice, ok? AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can start by NOT placing your messages wherever you feel like on somebody's talk page. Leave messages at the bottom, not in the middle of other discussions. Also, try reading the BIG ORANGE BANNER on my talk page to find out why I keep moving your posts back here. Pairadox (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ok
But why do you still write with a mean-streak and angrily? Does it hurt you to be gentle in words, to be nice? LIke "ok, you are new, and I can teach you this...'' instead of harsh words that you use? Why?  I do not understand why.AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You make assumptions about my emotional state which are akin to the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of accusation. Try reading the guideline on assuming good faith. Because my purpose on Wikipedia is to improve articles in various small ways, not engage in interpersonal dialogue or mentor new editors, I tend to keep my comments short and on-topic. Given the fact that you have said you have a professional connection to Wenocur a COI warning was issued, which was the extent of my intended interaction with you. Do you have questions about editing articles that isn't covered in the links that have been provided to you in the welcome above? Here's another, with better links.