Julia-The-Little-Lady
User talk:Julia-The-Little-Lady/userpage
Hello, Julia-The-Little-Lady, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
ϢereSpielChequers 11:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 PLEASE NOTE
|
If I have deleted your article and you would like to know why, please first have a look at the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
Reminder on wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons
This is just a response to your proposal at Talk:Michael Jackson, the following is a direct cut and paste from WP:BLP:
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
Reliable sources
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).
Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.[1]
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?
Be careful of "feedback loops" in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.
These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Michael Jackson, Islam, and your position
Hi Julia, just so that I'm clear, do you believe the MJ Islam story? I am not sure if this is about including rumours as part of the page, or including this story as fact, or what. As, you may have read, I agree with most of what you have written. Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think like a lot of these things there is probably an eliment of truth, but to be honest I really dont care. All I saw was somebody asking why it was not on the MJ page in a wiki forum, so I did my research, evaluated the sources and made what I believe was a reasonable decision that it should be included. If the three MJ fans who obvously control and push a overally positivly biased MJ biog had not been so aggressive I would probably would have just left it at that; but that is wikipedia and I suspect at some point they will annoy sombody so much that it gets looked at by unbiased admins.....But thanks for your support.
--Julia-The-Little-Lady (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The article List of Ad Serving Systems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- inappropriate list of external links. The three notable companies in this list are listed in Ad serving.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. bonadea contributions talk 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
- Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
- Editor-focused central editing dashboard
- "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
- Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
- Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)