User talk:LuMas

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Spinboy 07:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Bachelor's degree

 * 1) When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]] The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.  When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
 * 2) As your changes seem neither to make the article more accurate (in fact they reduce its accuracy) nor improve it stylistically, and as you've offered no explanation (not even an edit summary &mdash; see above) for them, I shall continue to revert them. If you were to try to make a case for them, we could at least start discussing the issue. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message (sorry to take so long replying). I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that the B.Phil. is famous in the U.S. as an undergraduae degree; I teach a lot of U.S. students (Junior Year Abroad and other programmes), and none of them has ever heard of it. But in Bachelor's degree, for example, you changed the correct and precise "New bachelor's degrees" to the vague "Other bachelor's degrees", and changed the accurate "sometimes" to the less accurate "often" (note also Wikipedia policy concerning the uses of U.K. and U.S. English; if an article is already in one, then it shouldn't be changed unless the topic is specifically suited to another form; this article is in U.K. English, so the spelling is "honours", as in the rest of the article).

In Bachelor of Philosophy, your changes were more extensive, so I'll just mention a few. Your claim that "B.Phil." comes from "Baccalaureus Philosophiae" needs a source (and is certainly false with regard to the Oxford degree; we generally use English titles (hence "D.Phil. rather than "Ph.D.", for example), and it just mans "Bachelor of Philosophy". The claim that it's an undergraduate degree (oh, and sometimes a graduate degree) is at best misleading; in many countries, not only the U.K., it is almost always a graduate degree, and that's it's first usage.  I'm not sure why you prefer "Beyond Oxford" to "Outside Oxford".

I don't think that you added any new information that needs to be replaced, but if I've missed something, let me know. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts
I appreciate your adding material to the article, but the detail that you are adding is already in the History of Boston, Massachusetts article. The material in the Boston article should be kept to summary form (not to mention that the article should not go above 40 kB in size). Pentawing 04:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I went through and copyedited your additions. I hope that I am not upsetting you by my eliminating some details, but a peer reviewer, Nichalp (who is very active with the FAC process), strongly recommended that any articles being nominated should not have a large amount details when such information could be placed within a sub-article, that the main article should be summarized instead. Pentawing 04:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up some wording, grammar, and spelling. At the moment, I decided to leave the basic structure as is, though I am hoping that there are no further problems (I contacted the peer reviewer above for his view, and right now I am hoping that he doesn't object). Pentawing 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lawrence.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 10:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Lawrence_academy2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence_academy2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
It looks like you were trying to create a redirect at US education. I've adjusted the code so the article redirects to Education in the United States. You can create a redirect by replacing all text in the article with this line:


 * 1) RedirectTarget

and replacing Target with a wikilink to the target article. You can learn more at Redirect. Please make sure that you link to the main article, and not to another redirect page, as the reader will only be forwarded once (see Double redirects.) Thanks!

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lawrence.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Lawrence academy.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lawrence academy.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Frontline Foundation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frontline Foundation 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/Frontline Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Graywalls (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)