User talk:Natalie Erin/Archive 12

blahblah
Indeed, my apologies for trying to help fix the page. You corrected my undo literally one minute after I did it, which I was in the process of trying to fix. So now I still don't know how to do it. --No need to be overbearing. GrimmC 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just got annoyed because it happened like immediately after I did it, heh. Felt like Minority Report or something. No hard feelings, eh? GrimmC 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

LOOK i was asked to quote sources I did you tell me im vandalizing I post the truth im told im vandalizing....... after you ban me and i relog form a new IP i will make an acount but will you keep this double speak up i thought this was an encycolpedia for the masses not a pedia of the what i want to hear and what sounds good i would of responded to Acroterion but i dont see a way to responed to him his/her talk page in short what is with all this psuedo censorship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.243.170 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WELL..............

are you the great and mighty wikipedia censors going to respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.243.170 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Nice of you to support my interaction with User talk:Russellbdavis so promptly. It's only since recently I've been speaking policy toward the kerfluffled. MaxEnt 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I decided to dig into the possible copyvio issue discussed at Talk:Evel_Knievel, as I'm interested in learning more about how these matters play out. Since you are an admin and active on that page, perhaps you could cast an eye to see whether anything further ought to be done (or whether, perhaps, I've already done more than enough).  MaxEnt 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

El Jigue and your comments
Natalie, I am frankly surprised by your comments to El Jigue:
 * 1) "I'm sorry the concept of collaboration and good faith are beyond you.",
 * 2) "I'm sorry you were not willing or able to reform.", and to top it all off
 * 3) "If you decide at some point that you are interested in learning how to properly participate in a collaborative project, you can email me at natalie dot wiki at gmail dot com."

Based on what I have seen, it seems that El Jigue has repeatedly brought forward a viewpoint that is not shared by some who are in a position to block him. The mere disagreement regarding facts and viewpoints is not a valid reason to block a user. Blocking should be limited to those who vandalize, delete and seek to destroy wikipedia.

EJ has not engaged in any of these activities. Blocking him reflects extremely poorly on wikipedia and those who have participated in blocking him. Since you seem to take personal responsibility, including discussion of "reform", I presume that you are in a pivotal role in preventing him from expressing his viewpoint. I'm not sure if this means that "freedom of speech" is a value that you are not familiar with.

Aki Korhonen 06:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava
Hello, sorry to bother you but since you were the only one to offer an opinion at this discussion, would you offer one now that it has completely lost control? Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The User's edits are biased. He was redirecting List of Notable Ezhavas to Ezhava article and someone tried to stop that he has warned of seroius consequences. At last he forced the 1st article to be deleted. On the same time List of Nairs which doesnt have any reference still active in wikipedia. Also he has removed many sourced content from Ezhava article evenafter many editors providing book name and other refrences in Talk:Ezhava.Tn pillai 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad S Mini
Thank you for your comments. Remove mine as you will. I did read the TALK help after you posted on mine page, so I have a better understanding now of what is to be posted. I am grateful to you for the job you do. A questions or two if I may. My wife is a teacher and I was wondering what you thought about Wikipedia being used as a source of information for papers written at the middle and high school level. Also, if a page is vandalized, how do you find out? Just happen to see it, someone reports it, or perhaps you get notified of changes made to pages that are frequently vandalized? Thanks. Bad S Mini 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, thank you for your response to my questions. I could tell by your response and writing style you are extremely intelligent. I hope you plan to get an advanced degree at some point. I went to college and started med school for someone else and decided it wasn't for me. I went back to school and got another degree in an area better suited for me. When you really enjoy what you do, it makes all the difference. Money is very important despite what many people say, but there are many things more important. If you have not fallen asleep yet, please allow me one more question. If the information used by the authors of Wikipedia Articles is not suppose to be original research material then where should the information come from? Wait before you blast me, I did read the page on Reliable Sources and Citing Sources, I just need a little clarification. It has been a while since I've written a research paper, term paper or thesis. What I've have not forgotten about APA formatting and the rules of writing has probably changed. Can someone read information from a source, PARAPHRASE the information and then include it in an article without the need to cite it? Also what happens if you challenge a statement, and on what grounds are you able to challenge it on? Do you challenge it as needed to be cited if you think it meets one of the criteria under "Why sources should be cited?" (Though I guess that would seem to be self evident.) The following was taken from the Wikipedia page African American: With the political consciousness that emerged from the political and social ferment of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the term Negro fell into disfavor among many blacks. It had taken on a moderate, accommodationist, even Uncle Tom, connotation.

If I understand correctly, I could challenge this as needing citation if I thought it was plagiarized, original research or from a biography. But again if it is not from those where would it come from. And could I challenge it on its accuracy and correctness? Or, if the information is incorrect or even say disputed, BUT cited and verifiable, is that information OK to use? I apologize for needing assistance, but I intend to send you a brief explanation by email. Thanks Bas S Mini Bad S Mini (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox Articles
Thanks. As a new contributor I was under the impression that the whole point of a personal sandbox was that it would affect nothing outside it. I gather I was wrong. If you can point me to the protocl article dealing thnks again. WIKI is a grand idea, but again as a new user I wonder how many are put off by the frankly Byzantine protocols, which, as in this case, you only find by tripping over them. GORDONEH GORDONEH (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Vandal with a grudge"
At this time, he has one not-yet-blocked sock -. Although it was a "throwaway" account used for only a few edits in October, I still think it's safer to block it to prevent further abuse. TML (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!
Just noticed that you now have your bachelors degree. Way to go!!!  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

PhpED page deleted
Dear Natalie,

I noticed that you've deleted PhpED page and applied reason A7. I'm not sure if this is correct to apply that reason. Indeed A7 applicable to pages about people and companies and not applicable for their albums, software and so forth (see the A7 definition). PhpED is software, I'm a happy customer of NuSphere Corp and I want to see PhpED page on Wikipedia site. Would you please restore the page or apply appropriate reason? Thanks, JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlad (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Significance of PhpED
Dear Natalie, I came here because one of our users informed us that PhpED page was deleted - I guess that user is the author of the comment above. I do consulting for NuSphere - the authors of PhpED and I would like to provide some additional information about PhpED. I understand and respect the rules of Wikipedia and understand completely the article A7. However, I think that creation and release of PhpED was extremely significant to PHP community - as well as to the entire open source. It is possible that the article failed to make it clear, I don't remember the content there, so I would be more than happy to clarify it if you "resurrect" the article.Ph

- PhpED was pretty much the first real IDE for PHP. Before PhpED going commercial, the most of the php development was done using textpad and similar editors - PhpED was the first and still only PHP IDE fully integrated with Dbg - one of only two stand alone PHP debuggers - PhpED was the first PHP IDE that managed to cross from freeware to commercial application used by thousands (literally, thousands) of professional php developers as well as the beginners, high school and college students, US Government and Governments of other countries

Of course putting this in the article would have made it look more like marketing, so the author was reluctant to do so. PhpED is definetely one of the top three PHP IDE/Editors on the market. Nobody argues against the articles about Zend's products - I think PhpED deserves the same treatment, as do other significant PHP IDEs. We believe that wikipedia users will benefit greatly from learning about the tools available in PHP world

I hope this helps to clarify the intent. Please let us know if it makes sense and if there is anything we can do have the pages dedicated to PhpED on Wikipedia. Many thanks for your help! - Yury