User talk:Bigjoe5216
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the Sandbox.
- For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.
-- utcursch | talk 09:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to Benjamin Rush
Hello, I reviewed the changes you made and seem to be your personal own view please provide a link for your claims (see WP:RS). Take a moment to also read these WP:COI and WP:OR.
The reversion was valid not vandalism, next time please do not overwrite on cited material.--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 09:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I will look up the various symbols & etc., but I did provide Citations to all the materials I posted.
Does it make any sense to quote other writers opinions, as opposed to quoting and Citing Benjamin Rush himself?
J.M.
Post Script:
When find obsolete news articles or obscure published letters and post them on Wikipedia, it is done for the purpose of and the intention to increase the body of knowledge surrounding the Subject, and not to introduce any Bias. I always believed that was the purpose of having an enclycopedia.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
To BillFilis, EtAl & Etc:
Upon reviewing the guidelines: personal own view, WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:OR, Wikipedia:No original research, neutral, verifiable, no original thought. I must agree that my additions and changes conflict with those guidelines. Personally I don’t agree that quoting an author who has presented his opinion is a very accurate way of obtaining the truth, but I did not make the rules. My additions (many were ever published in this context) advanced and provoked thought, and therefore must be removed. I regret that I must remove what I contributed, but I am confined and commanded buy the "rules of Wiki." I suppose when I author a publication, then my work may be quoted here.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edits to Greenwood Cemetery, Philadelphia
Your recent edits (and the YouTube video that you evidently made yourself and tried to introduce as a reference) sound like you have an axe to grind over some legal issues concerning the recent management of the cemetery. You should refrain from editing wikiarticles in which you are an interested party, because of the danger of introducing even unintentional bias. I suspect that you are one of the "infuriated neighbors", maybe even a party in the legal proceedings, because you seem to know so much about it, am I correct? If so, you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a blog for anyone's personal opinions or personal research. I see that you have done much the same thing to the Benjamin Rush article. I have removed your edits from the cemetery article, as they merely duplicate material found under Rush.--BillFlis (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
To BillFilis:
Upon reviewing the guidelines: personal own view, WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:OR, Wikipedia:No original research, neutral, verifiable, no original thought. I must agree that my additions and changes conflict with those guidelines. Personally I don’t agree that quoting an author who has presented his opinion is a very accurate way of obtaining the truth, but I did not make the rules. My additions (many were ever published in this context) advanced and provoked thought, and therefore must be removed. I suppose when I author a publication, then my work will be quoted here.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Oswald Eve
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Oswald Eve, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Oswald Eve seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Oswald Eve, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Oswald Eve is a work in progress. Although there is not much known about him, he was a major figure in Philadelphia before and during the American Revolution, which I will attempt document over time in accordance to Wiki Standards.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)