User talk:Soma143657

August 2008
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. If you re-add Mr Allan's address to this article then I will have no choice but to block you from editing Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of talk-page comments
You have removed a comment from The Increment talk page. It is not normally considered acceptable to change or remove another editor's talk page comments, except in special circumstances (such as if a comment breaches copyright, or is libellous). In any case, if you do think there is a good reason for removing another editor's comment you should state your reason for doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have posted the following comment to my talk page:

''Please could you refrain from undoing the deletion of user talk that refers to sentences which have been deleted or changed. Such comments are invalid and irrelevant to the article. I am referring to the article entitled 'The Increment'. Next time I will be making a formal complaint.''

Thank you for your comment. It is generally more helpful, if you find yourself disagreeing with another editor, to inform them courteously of what you think, with a view to attempting to bring about an agreement, without threatening further action such as "a formal complaint". If you have not done so you may like to read the Wikipedia etiquette guideline.

As I have said above, it is not normally considered acceptable to change or remove another editor's talk page comments. The Wikipedia talk page guidelines say "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". I fully understand that it may seem that this need not apply in the case of comments which refer to matter which has been deleted, but for several reasons it does: for example, it provides an account of how editing decisions have been reached for the benefit of other users who may read the page later. I shall therefore restore the comment which you have now twice deleted, and I ask you not to delete it again: whether you agree or not, Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that you shouldn't.

I hope this has helped to clarify the situation for you: if you have any further questions please feel welcome to ask me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
The recent edit you made has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have posted the following comment to my talk page:

''Please could you provide readers with the reference link to a block of quoted text that you feel infringes copyright instead of just deleting the whole thing outright. This lowers the quality of the article for readers. I am reffering to the article entitled 'The Increment'.Next time I will be making a formal complaint.''

I see your point, and I shall bear it in mind in the future. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumours
Rumours are by definition not reliable sources for anything, and thus fail our requirements of verifiability. One may refer to the existence of rumours if the rumours are in turn reported in reliable sources and cites said sources, as long as by doing so one does not imply the reliability or veracity of the rumours themselves. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read you query about rumours on my talk page, and I have given you an answer there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)