User talk:Duceober

Help
I am looking for help regarding editing as far as i know anyone can edit Wikipedia. So i would have thought that other users should not stop me from editing articles. I should be entitled to edit as much as other ordinary users do. (Duceober (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

It should not just be handful of people deciding how articles are wrote but I should be entitled to my say and contribution to. Where I would understand it if it was administrators or moderators as they must have more power on how articles are edited and wrote. (Duceober (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Actually, no. Admins are editors like everyone else when it comes to what goes in the articles. You can edit things - but other people may disagree and edit them back. This is why we want people to use reliable sources to back up what they say. Look at WP:RS to find out what we mean by reliable sources. I can't see that you have tried to edit anything yet - or was that before you started this account? It would help if we knew where the problem was. Peridon (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Many new users think that Wikipedia is just a combination of whatever anyone wants to say about a subject, to "have their say". Actually, we collaborate to create a reference work based on reliable published sources like books, newspapers, magazines, and academic journals.


 * New users, old users, and administrators all have to follow the same basic rules. Find sources that have good reputations, summarize them in articles where they are relevant.  Some editors have limited powers to block other users, but they do not have power to break these basic rules or make up their own.


 * If you have any questions about how to edit you can start with the simple ruleset, which is a nice overview of our policies. Or you can ask about a specific article on that article's talk page.


 * Let me know if you have any questions, Ocaasi c 23:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not edited on Wikipedia yet but my question being if i make an edit with reliable sources and someone disagrees by reverting it back to articles original form and possibly reporting me and it.(Duceober (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

To me this doesn’t seem fair if content contained reliable sources and I do not think I should be reported. As I would have only been trying to contribute to article. Also wandered why it is when certain other people get to make edits and it stays on article. (Duceober (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Yet if i was to make edit it seems to be a completely different matter and it is got rid of. I sometimes think it is a waste of my time trying to contribute to Wikipedia yet i should be able to like any of other people who contents stays on articles. (Duceober (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC))
 * The thing is, not everything with reliable sources is notable enough to be in an article. I am puzzled as to why you are so pessimistic about your as yet unmade edits. Why would your edits be removed and other people's stay? OK, if you added stuff that didn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Adding a section to an article about Grant Slingsby-Faversham, the famous polo player, which listed all his teddies and the fact that until the age of nine he would only wear purple pyjamas might be reliably sourced in a book by his second nanny. Unless it had some bearing (sorry!) on his career in the Coldstream Guards and on the polo field, it would be regarded as irrelevant. (Don't look him up - I create people and places at a moment's notice for use as examples.) A section on his service in the Malayan Jungle (with good references) would be relevant, and should not be removed. If there is a dispute, there is a talk page to work things out on. If that doesn't work, there are more procedures to use. Including me marching in, insulting everyone in sight so that they hate my guts and get together to try to spite me by showing how friendly they can be to each other. (It does work - just don't tell everyone about it...) Give it a go. If not sure, ask a regular editor or admin first. Don't be put off if you get reverted. Happens to us all. Either grin and go to another article, or discuss it. Do listen to any warnings you may get. If you don't understand why they're there, ask (politely) for an explanation. It's not the end of the world. (That's next year, so they say...) Peridon (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Waveney Campus University for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Waveney Campus University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Waveney Campus University until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Waveney Campus University


Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Waveney Campus University, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 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. Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Darkcover21 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)