User talk:Pputter

Welcome from Ioeth
Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Evisum
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Evisum, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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 endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Ioeth
The template I placed on that article isn't actually for speedy deletion, it's for proposed deletion. Proposed deletions have a 5 day waiting period, unlike speedy deletions, so that you can fix the issues for which I proposed deletion. The biggest thing missing from this article is citations of reliable sources. For instance, saying that Evisum incorporates the Google search engine and then linking to http://www.google.com is not a proper source. Please read the two links about citations and sources for more information. Failing to provide sources also means that an article is not verifiable, which is a policy and a criteria for inclusion. It also means the article does not prove the notability of the subject, which is also important for inclusion. If you can add some sources like magazine, newspaper, or web reviews of the software, that would go a long way to helping the article.

As far as proposed deletions go, you can remove the notice at any time if you object to the deletion for any reason. I will tell you that unless sources are added, if the PROD is removed, I will be nominating the article for WP:AFD. If you do add sources, however, I see no reason why the article shouldn't be kept. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Oh, and be absolutely sure to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (like this, ~ ) at the end of your message. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous Americans
I think you are adding these inappropriately, and may well be in breach of WP:SPAM. The one I first saw was completely the wrong person, plus you are adding them at the top of what ever section you add them too, which is usually wrong. You should not add things to References sections that have not actually been used to write the article, but all your recent edits seem just to add this link en masse. If you are found to be spamming, ALL these links will be reverted by bot. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. There are hundreds upon hundreds of citing of FamousAmericans.net and its subsidaries incorrectly over the years on  Wikipeida by various authors. These need to be corrected to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley L. Klos Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889  here are just a few examples at famousamericans.net:

William Tilghman Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (194 words) - 22:48, 19 November 2007 Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (I) Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (223 words) - 06:24, 20 November 2007 Thomas Dale Relevance: 77.5% - 8 KB (1150 words) - 10:53, 20 November 2007 James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (829 words) - 17:05, 20 November 2007 Charles Manly Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (332 words) - 23:18, 20 November 2007 Civil War token ... the spot.". Virtual American Biographies at www.famousamericans.net. Retrieved June 23, 2006. The quote found its w... Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1325 words) - 11:44, 22 November 2007 George Baylor Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (473 words) - 03:25, 23 November 2007 Maria Zakrzewska Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (302 words) - 16:36, 23 November 2007 Edmund Zalinski Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (418 words) - 20:40, 23 November 2007 Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, II) Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (300 words) - 23:01, 24 November 2007 Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, I) Relevance: 77.5% - 1 KB (201 words) - 23:02, 24 November 2007 John Morin Scott Relevance: 77.5% - 4 KB (611 words) - 17:40, 25 November 2007 Roger Morris (British Army officer) ..., 1760 ending French rule in North America.http://famousamericans.net/rogermorris/ Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (388 words) - 10:42, 26 November 2007 Thomas Penn Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1030 words) - 11:23, 26 November 2007 James Hall (paleontologist) Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1006 words) - 15:31, 26 November 2007 John Curtiss Underwood Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (419 words) - 01:40, 27 November 2007 Mary Clark Thompson Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (463 words) - 21:28, 27 November 2007 John Trumbull Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1302 words) - 21:17, 27 November 2007 Noël Brûlart de Sillery Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (352 words) - 10:07, 28 November 2007 Westerlo, New York ...is named after Rev. Eilardus Westerlo (http://www.famousamericans.net/eilarduswesterlo/). Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (772 words) - 05:55, 30 November 2007
 * http://www.famousamericans.net/luciusquintuscincinnatuslamar/
 * http://www.famousamericans.net/sirthomasdale/
 * http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesgambier/
 * url=http://www.famousamericans.net/jameshall1/
 * http://www.famousamericans.net/myronholleyclark/
 * Article, FamousAmericans.net

OR Like this - http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofwomen/MARIANANDERSON on Marian Anderson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

or like this

http://virtualology.com/apbaronstow/ on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Stow

These references need to be be cited properly

2. There is use of sentences and paragraphs directly from Famous Americans.net and other Virtualology sites that are NOT cited with a "reference note" nor are there any references whatsoever to Appleton's or Virtualology so here we add it as a reference as a direct numerical citation unless the Article has no "footnoted" citations and only general references. Then I just add it to the list on references.

3. In terms how the reference is listed, if there is a "footnote" it shows in the order as it appears. If there is no "footnote: then it is listed alphabetically.

4. As for putting the wrong person in the reference, I will be sure to double check the names in the future.

Now I realize you and the other Wikipedians are doing a fabulous job on monitoring this thr project. Please advise how we may mutually correct this to everyone's satisfaction as it needs to be corrected. Thank you --Pputter (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, again - I'm curious what your figures for "relevance" are here:

Tedickey (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * virtuology
 * - wikipedia

It was an error at http://www.famousamericans.net/johnbanister/ which was the father in the first paragraph and the son in the 2nd who is the suject of the Wiki page. Agreed the Article should have been improved and properly linked -- Like I said we will double check in the future. The reference however added to the reads information not only on the subject but his father of the same name.


 * That didn't answer my question: in the example I cited, the virtuology page's differences from the wikipedia page consist of what appear to be unreliable comments. None of the virtuology pages appear to give a source for their statements, none are dated.  So, why should I want to add content from virtuology?  Tedickey (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Pputter (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)