User talk:Irvine22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Irvine22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ashanda (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to David Eppstein, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


What commentary and personal analysis do you mean? I certainly wouldn't want to be blocked from editing Wikipedia....I mean, it's not like just anyone can do it, is it?Irvine22 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding to your note. I do not routinely monitor user talk pages where I leave templated messages. Specifically, comments such as "He has a slender publication history" are problematic with regards to original research and neutrality. If judgments regarding the breadth of the subject's publication history have been made in reliable sources, these can, of course, be mentioned as long as properly weighted within the article. All such commentary must be attributed to source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Ok, I understand. By those standards it does seem there are a number of unsourced claims in the David Eppstein article. I imagine that's why it's been tagged as unverified? Irvine22 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would imagine so. However, in this particular case, the prevailing policy is not the one on verifiability, but the one on biographies of living persons, which specifies that such articles "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone" and adds that "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case in point, it seems to be what the subject has published about himself.Irvine22 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject himself has stated that he has a slender publication history? Do you have a citation? Or am I misunderstanding you? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant the subject of the article seems to have regularly edited it. I suppose he would have first hand knowledge of himself, and in the absence of sources for most of the claims in the article I guess that's good enough for Wikipedia! Irvine22 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced information

The information you removed from the article David Eppstein here is sourced and neutral. The removal does not seem constructive, and the information has been restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The "information" being a paragraph promoting the subject's website? Doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. More like advertising. Irvine22 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly valid information, relevant not only to an individual's biography but to the individual's field. Furthermore, it's actually quite modestly presented, given that the reference labels the website an "amazing resource", which could validly have been quoted and attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it would have been more effective for the subject to advertise his website as an "amazing resource". But ineffective advertising is still advertising. Irvine22 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And this was neutrally presented, sourced text relevant to the subject's notability. If you have evidence that the subject is making COI edits to this article, you're welcome to bring that up at the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:44246271 princequeen 300.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:44246271 princequeen 300.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi. I responded to your note, but my response (and your note) have been archived, here. If you'd like to discuss it further, please open a new section at my talk page, as I may not see comments on the archive. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)