User talk:Docica

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Coup of 12 June has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \btypepad\.com\b (links: http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2009/06/irans-political-coup.html). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Coup of 12 June
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that [[Coup of 12 June]] meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/[[Coup of 12 June]]. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. — V = I * R  (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I'm impressed with at least the volume of your edits. I wish that you would at least read and attempt to adhere to the core Wikipedia policies, though (see:Policies and guidelines). There's nothing sinister occurring here, there is no consensus to cover up what has occurred in Iran. We simply can't present opinion and rhetoric as fact, is all. I'm certain that your efforts would be much more appreciated at 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests. — V = I * R  (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!
Thanks for your great participation in Coup of 12 June article. It shows you are a good editor for wikipedia that develops articles instead of delete them. Thanks and have a good day. --Samic130 (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Coup of 12 June
Hi - I just wanted to leave you a note about the sources used in the article Coup of 12 June, which you're working on quite heavily. WP is based entirely on reliable sources, and we have guidelines on what constitute these - specifically that blogs, op-eds, opinion pieces, commentary etc are not reliable for discussing events that happened, only for reporting the views of their author.

Looking at the sources the article uses - Huffingon Post opinion piece, FPIP commentary, Washington Post Columnist, a blog, opinion, NY Times Op-Ed Editorial - none of these sources meet the criteria to be included as sources for events that took place. In addition, a number of the sources are in Persian language, which is problematic for the English language wiki because we can't verify what they say, or what their provenance is.

I can see you're putting in a lot of work to add a lot of sources to each paragraph, but it would really help your case in the ongoing deletion discussion if you fixed the problems with the existing sources, rather than adding several more that have the same problems.

If you've got any questions or comments, please do get in touch, either here, my talk page, the article's, etc. Thanks --Saalstin (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your advice. First, so many sources are added not to be a fact, otherwise they are there to show that the expression "Coup of 12 June" has been widely known. This is because there was a discussion about the article's name. Second, as this issue is dispute and discussed, we need to have as many as sources to fulfill the editors desire. However, with all respect, I believe that most of the sources are highly reliable and rarely found in WP articles.--163.246.25.106 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The dispute over the article's name is that it is a point of view (that a coup took place). By using the sources the way you are, you're not proving that a coup took place, you're proving that an opinion is that it took place, that it is necessarily and inherently a biased view.  That makes it critical that you find non-opinion piece sources.


 * "Second, as this issue is dispute and discussed, we need to have as many as sources to fulfill the editors desire" No, that's part of what I was trying to say - you don't need 'as many sources' as possible, you need good quality, reliable sources. You might like to take a look at some featured articles, such as Bruce Castle, or Gropecunt Lane, which have many fewer sources than this article, and very few cases of multiple sources being used to back up a single claim - because the sources used are high quality, and meet our policies.


 * Finally, the reason blogs, op-eds, commentary and columns are rarely found in WP articles is because they don't, as I've explained, meet our policies. I'm sorry to go over this again, but they're not reliable for noting what happened (please read Statements of Opinion, which the article needs to be. --Saalstin (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi - sorry to go on about this again, but I wanted to use the latest source you've added to Coup of 12 June as an example. The Forbes article has the words "opinions contributors" in the URL, and is headlined as "Commentary" in the article.  That means it is an opinion, rather than a source of fact.  However many of these you add, you are not dealing with the central issue that you are not adding reliable, factual sources.  Please save yourself time and effort, and discuss this so that you can identify good, useful sources that will help the article --Saalstin (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And in your latest change, you haven't changed the source, you've merely changed it to another website reposting the same blog entry. Please understand, other editors are trying to help you make WP a better encyclopaedia, and it would be really helpful if you would engage in discussion, which should save you a lot of effort in the wrong direction --Saalstin (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Andi, please look at what you're deleting. Have Moussavi supporters called this a coup? According to your sources, they have, so that should not be deleted. Have columnists done this? Almost every single one of your sources is a column, so that should not be deleted. Trying to hide who holds those views constitutes vandalism --Saalstin (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not argue with you anymore, as it is now completely apparent to me that you are intentionally aiming to ruin this article. For the last words: 1. From WP: A columnist is a journalist who writes for publication in a series, creating copy that can sometimes be strongly opinionated. 2. There may be many people who call it "coup", however the first paragraph and references are not addressed ordinary people or Mousavi supporters, all references are addressed "political analysts and journalists". It is not right to change the paragraph as it is intended to be. This paragraph is intended to reflect the professional expert analysis and not the ordinary people's opinion. The POV of Mousavi supporters and other people are addressed in the rest of the article. And finally, do what ever you can to ruin this article's credibility. Good luck.--Andi horn (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Andi, first off, I see you agree that 'columnist' is a valid word in this context. I will assume good faith, and presume that you don't realise that 'journalist' ususually implies the writing of articles of fact, whereas 'columnist' usually means writing articles of opinion.  You have linked almost exclusively to the latter, as you agreed here, which means that word is more suitable.


 * Secondly, a great many of the editorials you have linked to, including at least 3 in the first 10 reference that protesters in the street have called it that (which means it is their point of view).


 * Thirdly, I recommend that you read the policy WP:OWN. By using phrases like "the paragraph as it is intended to be", you seem to be suggesting that you have exclusive rights over it.  WP is contributed to by everybody, and articles emerge by consensus, not one person deciding how they are 'meant to be'.


 * Finally, I am doing nothing to 'ruin' the article, I am doing my best to help you with it. I have left you a great many messages advising on why established editors are objecting to your edits and suggesting how you could fix them, and policies which would help you if you read them.  Many of your problems have come about as you have ignored them, and steamrollered on.  Please slow down, and discuss things, so that WP can be made the best encyclopaedia it can be.  --Saalstin (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add a note of support to what Saalstin is saying above. I don't want to appear to be piling on, so I've been avoiding the content dispute that is being addressed here, but I think that it's important to note that Saalstin is not alone in his view. He's speaking, generally, with the weight of the established community to back him up. — V = I * R  (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
Please see Talk:Iranian presidential election, 2009 — V = I * R  (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. rdt (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your inappropriate behavior. Putting a whole copy of a newly deleted article is not appropriate, specially when one of the reason's for deleting the article is inappropriate referencing. Please solve the problem first in the talk page and do not change that part until consensus is reached. Thank you. rdt (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)