User talk:Niels Gade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Niels Gade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Activities

A comment by a minor legislator broadly endorsing one of LaRouche's initiatives isn't biographical information, and the article is already quite long. The comment hasn't been reported elsewhere and hasn't generated a reaction from the LaRouche movement. By comparison, the Duggan matter has created enormous coverage for LaRouche in the U.K., and the LaRouche movement has made numerous responses. The two issues aren't in the same league. If someone writes a new biography of LaRouche in 50 years, the Duggan matter will be mentioned and the Gravel comment won't be. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request?

You posted this on my talk page:

"I am asking you politely not to taunt me about my name, not to call my edits "cult fiction," and not to otherwise attempt to intimidate me or others who may disagree with you."

My response:

I have never attempted to intimidate other editors who disagree with me. I did not taunt you about your name, I mentioned that it was the same as a famous composer. I want this on the record on your talk page. If you wich to discuss this further, please take it to a entry discussion page (your choice).--Cberlet 13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Rroad1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rroad1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Kronberg

I was inclined to revert the "killing machine" quote at Kenneth Kronberg, but I saw your comment about leaving it there and instead I commenced a discussion about appropriate sources. I invite you to join that discussion. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Former members"

The NCLC talk page is a bit busy with other issues so I'll bring this here: Please don't keep adding "former member" unless you have sources. Claiming that someone must be a former member because of X, Y, or Z is original research or speculation. Like any assertion, it needs to be verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States v. LaRouche

You requested, and got, page protection on this article. However I don't see you making any attempt to settle the dispute. If there's no ongoing discussion for finding a compromise, or mediation, then I'm going to ask to have the protection lifted next week. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I got your note. When I checked the linked article I found it was protected, apparently because some editors had tried repeatedly to add inapproprate material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)